New Search Warrant

[Maja]

Maja, that's true about the possibility of waking the neighbors from car sounds. However, it was summer. Air conditioning units can be noisy. The sound of air inside the house makes noise while the outside unit makes a droning noise too. And yes, that neighborhood's homes are really close together.

What do you mean by the "...1-1:30" trip to HT? Is that a typo?

Oh, I meant IMO BC spent from between 1 - 1:30 AM - until the first trip to HT cleaning.

 

[ncsu95]

SS...one night I made a purchase and went back to HT to have a copy of my receipt printed to prove the receipt was NOT correct with the setup on it. I even posted it. I then got accused of calling the attorneys liars. If they provided BC receipt, I went to the same store, had it printed different...somethings NOT right.

Also, I posted before they produced the receipts on their site, "BC went back to HT to get his VIC transactions."

Sound a tad fishy to you???:waitasec:

The time has come for me to ask, "What did BC do from 4-6am?"
Many appear convinced he didn't go to HT, he was up at 4am, what the HECK did he do?

Does it really matter what type of laundry detergent he bought? We are talking about laundry detergent. I'm sure they had bleach in the house (obviously I have nothing to prove that)...but we are still talking about detergent. The video shows him purchasing detergent at that time. The receipt shows detergent.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

It's hard to doctor video...and it wouldn't make any sense. Also, I doubt K&B is going to do something that could ruin their firm for BC.

I didn't infer they doctored a video. I did infer they could have doctored the receipt, imo, to give the impression of the times being off and what was purchased.

All they have to do is NOT show the video or purchases from the store at 4:00 am. LOL No reason to doctor anything there.

 

[Maja]

One has to wonder why the July 16th search warrant inventory reflects the collection of a white XL Nike dry fit shirt since a viewing of the video tapes between 6 and 7 am clearly shows Brad had nothing white on during those visits.

Perhaps someone at the BBQ on the 11th stated he had on that particular shirt.

 

[ncsu95]

I didn't infer they doctored a video. I did infer they could have doctored the receipt.

All they have to do is NOT show the video or purchases from the store at 4:00 am. LOL No reason to doctor anything there.

They could have, but it wouldn't make any sense. The video clearly shows him purchasing detergent. The receipt shows detergent.

 

[Maja]

I'm not mto3k but...........

IMHO, IF BC was in fact up at 4:00 a.m. that fateful morning, one thing it does prove is that BC had much lonnnngggerrrr to dispose of NC's body AND under cover of darkness!

He's taken great care to TRY to prove he wasn't out that morning BEFORE daylight, but in his own words, he WAS up at 4:00 a.m......................which, IMO, gives him 'opportunity' of a much longer time period.

Actually, in his own words, BC has given us everything, motive = $$, control, divorce, possible custody of children,...... means = HIS car,....... opportunity = 4:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., July 12, 2008

JMHO
fran

IMO the opportunity time clock starts the moment NC returned from the BBQ.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

SS...one night I made a purchase and went back to HT to have a copy of my receipt printed to prove the receipt was NOT correct with the setup on it. I even posted it. I then got accused of calling the attorneys liars. If they provided BC receipt, I went to the same store, had it printed different...somethings NOT right.

Also, I posted before they produced the receipts on their site, "BC went back to HT to get his VIC transactions."

Sound a tad fishy to you???:waitasec:

The time has come for me to ask, "What did BC do from 4-6am?"
Many appear convinced he didn't go to HT, he was up at 4am, what the HECK did he do?

Accused of calling the lawyers liars?!?! Hahahahaha~ Since when do we think of defense attorneys as honest, upstanding, and never skirting the truth in any circumstance?! I can point out in case after case after case the "misleading or half-statements" told by defense attorneys in an effort to avoid negative publicity directed towards their clients.

Proof is in the purchase, eh?! Very interesting.

I am used to garbage put out by defense teams in order to try to sway public opinion. In this particular case, it is interesting they even took the time to put it up on a website about going to the store at all.

Have they narrowed anything down as to her TOD (Time of Death)? I may have missed this.

 

[ncsu95]

Accused of calling the lawyers liars?!?! Hahahahaha~ Since when do we think of defense attorneys as honest, upstanding, and never skirting the truth in any circumstance?! I can point out in case after case after case the "misleading or half-statements" told by defense attorneys in an effort to avoid negative publicity directed towards their clients.

Proof is in the purchase, eh?! Very interesting.

I am used to garbage put out by defense teams in order to try to sway public opinion. In this particular case, it is interesting they even took the time to put it up on a website about going to the store at all.

Have they narrowed anything down as to her TOD (Time of Death)? I may have missed this.

You can say the same things about prosecutors. Just look at what happened in Dallas this year.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050408dnmetmisconduct.3c03e8a.html

 

[momto3kids]

I didn't infer they doctored a video. I did infer they could have doctored the receipt, imo, to give the impression of the times being off and what was purchased.

All they have to do is NOT show the video or purchases from the store at 4:00 am. LOL No reason to doctor anything there.

SS...I have posted an actual receipt and a copy of my VIC transaction on WS prior to today to show K&B is NOT correct. I followed the steps of BC..shop and then return asking for a copy...
Here is what I did one time, only to say no way, K&B won't lie about this.

Look at the difference of the two.

1) BC's receipt, DSC (1.00-) is put way over to the right side of the receipt, HT always has theirs lined up.
2) An original receipt does NOT have our names on it. I pulled out over 20 receipts and not one has my name until I asked for a copy and had to give my phone number to get it.
3) So this must be a copy, but his name is located in a total different location. Computer systems just decide to change the format?
4) Do you see DSC anywhere on my receipt? Hmm..:waitasec:wonder why his does?

Nuff to prove somethings not right IMO.

 

[ncsu95]

SS...I have posted an actual receipt and a copy of my VIC transaction on WS prior to today to show K&B is NOT correct. I followed the steps of BC..shop and then return asking for a copy...
Here is what I did one time, only to say no way, K&B won't lie about this.

Look at the difference of the two.

1) BC's receipt, DSC (1.00-) is put way over to the right side of the receipt, HT always has theirs lined up.
2) An original receipt does NOT have our names on it. I pulled out over 20 receipts and not one has my name until I asked for a copy and had to give my phone number to get it.
3) So this must be a copy, but his name is located in a total different location. Computer systems just decide to change the format?
4) Do you see DSC anywhere on my receipt? Hmm..:waitasec:wonder why his does?

Nuff to prove somethings not right IMO.

I don't get what you are trying to prove. Maybe they emailed him what K&B posted and that is in a different format. Who cares that what you printed out doesn't match what is posted on K&Bs website. I can see in the video that he purchased 3 items from the 2 trips. He purchased milk, detergent, and a can of something. Do you see something different? Again, what are you trying to prove or show with this?

 

[SleuthSayer]

MT3K specifically said her source saw the video tape with a 4:20 timestamp.

That's fine. I'm just saying that prior to any purported videotape sightings, in fact prior to the body being found, there were a number of rumors spreading concerning what Brad told police the first day that she was missing. Of those rumors, most ended up matching reasonably well with the info that he put in his affidavit. Some have yet to be either supported or refuted by the info that has been released publicly. But, the one that definitely doesn't match up with what he and his lawyers have said is the rumor that he said that he went to buy detergent at 4am.

My personal opinion is that it seems extremely unlikely that he went to the store around 4am. If for no other reason, because Nancy's family's attorneys did not bring this up in the custody hearing. My understanding is that their investigator interviewed a lot of people and followed a lot of leads. Given that they filed an affidavit from a woman who said that he was a crappy boyfriend 10 years ago, it seems to require suspension of disbelief to think that they wouldn't have filed an affidavit from someone who saw videotaped evidence that proves that he lied in his timeline of that night/morning's events.

 

[ncsu95]

That's fine. I'm just saying that prior to any purported videotape sightings, in fact prior to the body being found, there were a number of rumors spreading concerning what Brad told police the first day that she was missing. Of those rumors, most ended up matching reasonably well with the info that he put in his affidavit. Some have yet to be either supported or refuted by the info that has been released publicly. But, the one that definitely doesn't match up with what he and his lawyers have said is the rumor that he said that he went to buy detergent at 4am.

My personal opinion is that it seems extremely unlikely that he went to the store around 4am. If for no other reason, because Nancy's family's attorneys did not bring this up in the custody hearing. My understanding is that their investigator interviewed a lot of people and followed a lot of leads. Given that they filed an affidavit from a woman who said that he was a crappy boyfriend 10 years ago, it seems to require suspension of disbelief to think that they wouldn't have filed an affidavit from someone who saw videotaped evidence that proves that he lied in his timeline of that night/morning's events.

Exactly.

 

[raisincharlie]

Perhaps someone at the BBQ on the 11th stated he had on that particular shirt.

Actually, I refered to that shirt to show it was possible Brad could have gone to HT in clothes other than those he was wearing at 6 am-7am as observed in the video. My real thought is that the white XL dry fit shirt was what Nancy wore to sleep in the night she was murdered.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I remember something about Brad wearing a long sleeve white shirt but of course I can't remember the specifics now and will have to research it...or not...I'm feeling kinda lazy right now. :wink:

 

[SleuthyGal]

Regarding the probable cause section of the latest warrant: I wonder why LE didn't seize those 2 right sneakers at the time of the original SW (as well as look for the matching left of each). They should have at least photographed the shelf with the shoes on them...whereever they saw it. The wording on the SW makes it appear that they noticed these shoes on AUGUST 13...as RC pointed out that could be a typo...but we don't know. I wonder why they waited so long (3+ months after Nancy's disappearance/murder) to get those items.

 

[runr]

snip My real thought is that the white XL dry fit shirt was what Nancy wore to sleep in the night she was murdered.

A men's white Nike dry fit XL shirt is enormous. I think Brad was wearing it that night... They stain really easily, too, even with Shout or OxiClean and several washings...maybe a good thing...

 

[fran]

There has been not ONE thing that has proven there was a 4:19 HT store bisit by Brad that morning, other than someone not connected to the case posting it on a message forum. Given the new search warrant and what has been made public, I think the likelihood of such a visit is remote, IMHO.

Obviously you have chosen to disregard the information of the 4:19 a.m. visit by the suspect that morning.

For what I know about the case, I choose to consider the earlier visit more than likely.

We'll just have to agree to disagree with regard to the 'unknown 4:00 a.m. HT visit,' as each cannot or...... will not prove to the other, it did or did not in fact occur.

At the end of the day, whether there was an earlier visit or not, really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Brad Cooper is under arrest for the murder of his wife Nancy. THAT is what matters most, at least to me.

I also think LE has sufficient evidence to convict the man, with OR without a 4:19 a.m. visit to HT. After all, what was soooo important that after all these years of having Nancy do everything around the house, on the exact day Nancy goes missing and was later learned to be murdered, possessed her husband to suddenly become all domestic and even frantically wash 5 or 6 tubs of clothes while cleaning the house from top to bottom? He DID in fact, purchase laundry detergent, as he so aptly proved with evidence of such!

JMHO
fran

 

[SleuthyGal]

Obviously you have chosen to disregard the information of the 4:19 a.m. visit by the suspect that morning.

IIRC NCSU has said he's waiting for official confirmation of the visit from LE or whoever (I guess that would be the prosecutor at trial now).

I also think LE has sufficient evidence to convict the man, with OR without a 4:19 a.m. visit to HT.

Yes that is the most important thing of all. If a 4:19am visit occurred it wouldn't prove murder, though it would be hinky as hell and hard to explain, and show Brad lied.

 

[momto3kids]

I finally listened to Depo tape #7 since this has not become a high priority on my list of to do's since BC is now :behindbar where he belongs.

Does anyone find it strange for a man who doesn't do laundry knows he had Dreft on the shelf? Wrong purchase perhaps once he read the label?

How about him stating to not giving Katie milk because they have been told to stop. But yet NC gets up was NOT too happy about having no milk in the house to give Katie? So if she was upset by this doesn't anyone find it strange he didn't go sooner to the store than after 6am than wrestle with a child for 2 hours at that time of the morning? Doesn't sound like NC was ending Katie milk drinking. Was Katie really up @4am, when he stated in his affidavit he got ready for the girls to get up after he returned from getting milk?

Det Daniels IMO saw thru all of this also.

 

[ncsu95]

Obviously you have chosen to disregard the information of the 4:19 a.m. visit by the suspect that morning.

For what I know about the case, I choose to consider the earlier visit more than likely.

We'll just have to agree to disagree with regard to the 'unknown 4:00 a.m. HT visit,' as each cannot or...... will not prove to the other, it did or did not in fact occur.

At the end of the day, whether there was an earlier visit or not, really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Brad Cooper is under arrest for the murder of his wife Nancy. THAT is what matters most, at least to me.

I also think LE has sufficient evidence to convict the man, with OR without a 4:19 a.m. visit to HT. After all, what was soooo important that after all these years of having Nancy do everything around the house, on the exact day Nancy goes missing and was later learned to be murdered, possessed her husband to suddenly become all domestic and even frantically wash 5 or 6 tubs of clothes while cleaning the house from top to bottom? He DID in fact, purchase laundry detergent, as he so aptly proved with evidence of such!

JMHO
fran

My opinion of the cleaning (I've exlained this before) with the assumption that BC didn't do it. So again, I'm explaining this as if BC did not kill NC. If he did not, and he said in his deposition that he still loved his wife and wanted the marriage to work...then it explains the cleaning. He cleaned the week before, but obviously no where near the standards that she has. So he was intent on proving himself that weekend. Again, I'm not trying to change your mind, but I can see this as a valid reason for him cleaning. Besides, why is everyone focused on him cleaning the house from top to bottom. She was strangled, so this wasn't a bloody mess he needed to clean up. Her body might have released urine or feces, but that wouldn't have been much to clean up (although it could explain the need to do laundry). But even if there was a small struggle, he still wouldn't have needed to scrub the house. So for me, him doing so makes more sense that he was trying to prove himself than it was trying to clean up evidence. What evidence could he possible have been cleaning up given the way she died?