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

[jumpstreet]

I dunno jumpstreet, if he didn't do it then there's a huge possibility that no female joggers (maybe no females period) in that whole metropolitan area are safe right now.

Yeah, it could still be Theory B (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2465948&postcount=171) though... the current runner-up theory... in earlier informal poll to the team (I need to query again to see if folks numbers have changed), that theory came in with a likelihood of somewhere in the 20-25 percentile range iirc. [ Regardless, this one certainly hasn't been categorically eliminated so far based on what we currently know ]

[SleuthyGal]

This board is not a court of law (thank goodness) and I don't think anyone could say they could in good faith CONVICT a man of murder in a court of law today based on what's known so far. Heck, we don't even know the cause of death! So I think the whole convict now argument is moot until this case is in trial and nearing completion.

Now, discussing the evidence we DO know about, the statements actually made in legal affidavits (as opposed to hypothetical ones conjured up in one's head), the lies we have discovered, the items from the SWs...all of that is relevant to understanding what a jury may be looking at down the road.

Circumstantial evidence is defined as everything that is not direct or eye witness evidence. It is often much more powerful than eye witness testimony. We might be able to come up with excuses for each item on the 'hinky' list (or maybe not), but it's important to look at all the evidence on a list and consider the totality of all items when taken together. And it's early days...there's a lot we do not know yet.

I personally don't see innocent explanations for LIES. If you compare each statement BC made between his police interviews and his affidavits you would have to conclude that:

1. he has multiple versions of what he was doing and when and
2. his multiple versions of the same event are not consistent with each other nor with what other witnesses said and
3. you wouldn't know which version of his story to believe, assuming you could believe ANY of them.

These are legal documents and BC's actual statements will be used in a court of law....not what he 'should have said,' and not what he 'probably meant to say to clear up confusion,' but what he actually DID say and DID write. His verbatim statements are evidence.

[jumpstreet]

These are legal documents and BC's actual statements will be used in a court of law....not what he 'should have said,' and not what he 'probably meant to say to clear up confusion,' but what he actually DID say and DID write. His verbatim statements are evidence.

It makes sense that BC's custody affidavit is legally admissible. Is the statements of the LE officer relaying what he said admissible too, or is that hearsay? [ Just curious. If that part isn't hearsay, I wonder why not?]

[SleuthyGal]

It makes sense that BC's custody affidavit is legally admissible. Is the statements of the LE officer relaying what he said admissible too, or is that hearsay? [ Just curious. If that part isn't hearsay, I wonder why not?]

Not hearsay. The statements verbally given to police and then related in documents written and signed by the detectives are affidavits -- legal documents the same as all the others. Don't forget that a judge SIGNED each SW based on the included statements/affidavits by the cops. They are all admissible (and will be used in a trial).

[jumpstreet]

This board is not a court of law (thank goodness) and I don't think anyone could say they could in good faith CONVICT a man of murder today based on what's known so far. Heck, we don't even know cause of death! So I think the whole convict now argument is moot until this case is in trial and nearing completion.


Agreed. I think we're all on the same general page here - that there is at once is a lot of suspicious stuff, but also a reasonably good chance that he didn't commit the crime. Only occasionally to ask the question to keep us 'grounded' is my thought. [ Reading some of the posts, one might think some have already convicted him, or might feel comfortable doing so with ease :)]. If our board is to 'on the whole' remain objective and balanced (while at the same time discussing, bouncing-ideas, learning), it seems reasonable to post the query as an occasional 'check point'.

[CyberPro]

OK, I was not on the board last night much, and just got caught up in reading all the posts since then.

Really good points being made about the multiple versions of "Laundry Story" and Wake-up times. Makes me think we are playing a game called Laundry Roulette.

I just had a thought based upon the comments about COD disguised as a Hit N Run and the lack of space in many garages.

I wonder if she was initially dropped in the middle of the cul de sac, then pushed off the road using the car? This could account for possible road rash (which is a speculation at this point) and might also account for the hair being in the wheel wells. This is predicated on the supposition that those hairs will be found to be human, and match NCs hair.

ETA: Surely the perp (;):rolleyes:) could NOT have been so clueless as to realize that in an acutal Hit n Run, the victim should be placed along a roadway where traffic is actually moving with some degree of speed, not in a cul de sac (!) and that the COD needs to be consistant with and Hit n Run, and have things like bone fractures.

CyberPro

[jumpstreet]

Not hearsay. The statements verbally given to police and then related in documents written and signed by the detectives are affidavits -- legal documents the same as all the others. Don't forget that a judge SIGNED each SW based on the included statements/affidavits by the cops. They are all admissible (and will be used in a trial).

Wow - very interesting. Maybe I'm unclear on the exact definition of heresay, my general impression is it tied to testimony from one person, of what another person told them. [ Doesn't matter if I sign an affidavit saying I heard person X say this doesn't make it any more valid/true]

But - I take it in the case of LE search warrants (because they are signed by LE, and signed by a judge), that the court would put higher 'weight' on what a LE person claims a suspect said (vs what witness X may claim (or submit via affidavit) that the suspect said). Is that right?

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not implying anything with the above query, I'm just asking for my own education (from curiosity perspective). On the surface, it strikes me as inconsistent handling of "relay of statements". In general, what is something "inadmissible, based on it being hearsay?"

[SleuthyGal]

Agreed. I think we're all on the same general page here - that there is at once is a lot of suspicious stuff, but also a reasonably good chance that he didn't commit the crime. Only occasionally to ask the question to keep us 'grounded' is my thought. [ Reading some of the posts, one might think some have already convicted him, or might feel comfortable doing so with ease :)]. If our board is to 'on the whole' remain objective and balanced (while at the same time discussing, bouncing-ideas, learning), it seems reasonable to post the query as an occasional 'check point'.

{red highlight is mine}

No we are not in agreement at all, general or otherwise. In fact I think he DID commit this murder. I still couldn't convict him for it in a court of law based on the CURRENT amount of evidence, simply because I don't HAVE all the evidence needed in order to render a LEGAL verdict.

But I sure as heck have opinions based on what I've seen so far. And what *I've* seen so far is: a man who has lied, a man who has physical indications of being scratched by someone else, a man who did out-of-character behaviors ON THE MORNING his wife went 'missing,' just to name a few. That's what I see so far.

And I have no problems saying on this board that he's not only the 'likely' culprit, I believe he *is* the culprit.

[momto3kids]

Show us your PINK underwear BC!!:dance:

As we know, the 1 thing everyone learning to do laundry messes up on......

red + whites=pink :laugh:

At least we would know he's attempted to turn on a washing machine:D

[reddress58]

I found one problem with RC's "laundry list". She did not call Brad to get laundry detergent. She called him to pick up juice for Bella. Might want to correct this.

Also, the SW's never stated that LE asked Brad about the scratches on his neck. It just states that he offered no explanation.

[jumpstreet]

And I have no problems saying on this board that he's not only the 'likely' culprit, I believe he *is* the culprit.

Ok - I think I understand the distinction. You're saying that your reason for not returning guilty verdict is that there are certain key pieces of data we still need in order to do so legally.

I guess I translated "unable to return a guilty verdict" to mean "I think reasonable doubt exists". [ To me, those were identical, but maybe not ]

I took "reasonable doubt exists" to mean "there is a reasonable chance he didn't do it". I treated those as basically the same statement.

Just to ask it point blank though:

I believe he *is* the culprit

Are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of this, based on current knowns?

[ If yes, then you are right, we aren't yet on the same page... :) ]

[SleuthyGal]

Thanks Reddress! Unfortunately I can't edit last night's post to remove the part where she called him to get laundry detergent...she did supposedly ask him though (I will have to look this up).

[SleuthyGal]

Are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of this, based on current knowns?

[ If yes, then you are right, we aren't yet on the same page... :) ]

Ok - I think I understand the distinction. You're saying that your reason for not returning guilty verdict is that there are certain key pieces of data we still need in order to do so legally.

BINGO!


1. I have no doubt he committed this murder and

2. I still could NOT convict him in a court of law today based on the fact that I don't have the necessary data with which to render a LEGAL decision. Not that I have doubt about what's been learned so far (I don't), but for the fact that I need to see ALL the evidence including results of forensic testing, autopsy, COD, etc, etc.

[raisincharlie]

Not hearsay. The statements verbally given to police and then related in documents written and signed by the detectives are affidavits -- legal documents the same as all the others. Don't forget that a judge SIGNED each SW based on the included statements/affidavits by the cops. They are all admissible (and will be used in a trial).

Agreed SG - what Brad himself told someone to their face is not hearsay. These LE officers will be brought into court to testify about what they heard directly from the horses mouth, what they saw in the house, about his demeanor and so on.

Of note however is that the search warrants themselves are not used in court or entered as evidence for obvious reasons and that is that parts of them are based on suspicion. Suspicion formed through direct conversation, observation and based on experience and training.

[raisincharlie]

I found one problem with RC's "laundry list". She did not call Brad to get laundry detergent. She called him to pick up juice for Bella. Might want to correct this.

Also, the SW's never stated that LE asked Brad about the scratches on his neck. It just states that he offered no explanation.

I didn't say Nancy called him to get laundry detergent, I didn't mention Nancy calling him at all actually. If LE didn't ask him about the marks, why would they mention he provided no explanation ? A person is suppose to know LE is looking at a scratch or two and tell LE all about it ?

[jumpstreet]

BINGO!


1. I have no doubt he committed this murder and

2. I still could NOT convict him in a court of law today based on the fact that I don't have the necessary data with which to render a LEGAL decision. Not that I have doubt about what's been learned so far (I don't), but for the fact that I need to see ALL the evidence including results of forensic testing, autopsy, COD, etc, etc.

Sleuthy, I guess I just struggle with reconciling your 2 statements : "I have no doubt he committed the murder" [not just 'beyond reasonable doubt', but 'beyond any doubt' (wow)...] but without even knowing COD, forensics results, approximate TOD, etc.

But anyway, I respect that it's your view. For me, fwiw, there is still room for an abundance of reasonable doubt (but it's just 'mo')

[reddress58]

I didn't say Nancy called him to get laundry detergent, I didn't mention Nancy calling him at all actually. If LE didn't ask him about the marks, why would they mention he provided no explanation ? A person is suppose to know LE is looking at a scratch or two and tell LE all about it ?
My apologies, RC. It was SG's laundry list.

[jumpstreet]

Agreed SG - what Brad himself told someone to their face is not hearsay. These LE officers will be brought into court to testify about what they heard directly from the horses mouth, what they saw in the house, about his demeanor and so on

Good to know. So if (hypothetically) the defense puts SH (or others) on the stand, and they testifies that BC told them directly the night he stayed at his place (or whenever) that he didn't do it, would the jury be instructed to disregard that (treat it as 'hearsay')?, or would it be admissible and to be weighed along with all the other evidence/testimony?

[raisincharlie]

Good to know. So if (hypothetically) the defense puts SH (or others) on the stand, and they testifies that BC told them directly the night he stayed at his place (or whenever) that he didn't do it, would the jury be instructed to disregard that (treat it as 'hearsay')?, or would it be admissible and to be weighed along with all the other evidence/testimony?

It would be admissable and the jury would decide its value as to truth or not.

[reddress58]

My apologies, RC. It was SG's laundry list.
We don't really know if they asked him or not. We just know he didn't offer an explanation. I wouldn't offer an explanation for something someone did not ask about. Why bring it to anyone's attention?

[SleuthyGal]

Sleuthy, I guess I just struggle with reconciling your 2 statements : "I have no doubt he committed the murder" [not just 'beyond reasonable doubt', but 'beyond any doubt' (wow)...] but without even knowing COD, forensics results, approximate TOD, etc.

But anyway, I respect that it's your view. For me, fwiw, there is still room for an abundance of reasonable doubt (but it's just 'mo')

I think that's because you don't understand what I mean by 'legal decision in a court of law' and how that is made, versus one's personal opinion and beliefs in a case (which are not to be used to render a verdict). I've explained it as clearly as I can.

[raisincharlie]

We don't really know if they asked him or not. We just know he didn't offer an explanation. I wouldn't offer an explanation for something someone did not ask about. Why bring it to anyone's attention?


Why put it in an affidavit that he offered no explanation then ? Would it not be deceitful to not ask and then put in an affidavit the guy didn't offer an explanation ? How to get a search warrant thrown out 101 - lie or mislead. They asked, he didn't answer simple as that, he was too busy "volunteering" the fact he was up at 4 am.

[reddress58]

Why put it in an affidavit that he offered no explanation then ? Would it not be deceitful to not ask and then put in an affidavit the guy didn't offer an explanation ? How to get a search warrant thrown out 101 - lie or mislead. They asked, he didn't answer simple as that, he was too busy "volunteering" the fact he was up at 4 am.
Do you honestly think he just stared into their eyes and was mum to the question? I think at least he would say "I don't know". But wouldn't that answer have to be put in the SW? It's an explanation.

[raisincharlie]

Do you honestly think he just stared into their eyes and was mum to the question? I think at least he would say "I don't know". But wouldn't that answer have to be put in the SW? It's an explanation.

From what I saw of him, eye contact was not his thing.

[CyberPro]

Why put it in an affidavit that he offered no explanation then ? Would it not be deceitful to not ask and then put in an affidavit the guy didn't offer an explanation ? How to get a search warrant thrown out 101 - lie or mislead. They asked, he didn't answer simple as that, he was too busy "volunteering" the fact he was up at 4 am.

RC,

Just for my own edification, could the conversation have gone like this?

LE: Mr. Cooper, I know that this matter is distressing to you, please understand that we will do all that we can to find your wife and return her home safely. I can see that you are upset, if we can do anything to help, we will be glad to do so. I see you have injuries, do you need medical attention for them?

BC: Thank you, yes, it is upsetting, I have been up since 4AM attending to the kids... and getting some items at the store so that we had food for their breakfast.....

CyberPro

[SleuthyGal]

Do you honestly think he just stared into their eyes and was mum to the question? I think at least he would say "I don't know". But wouldn't that answer have to be put in the SW? It's an explanation.

We don't know how the detective actually worded his (statement or question) to Brad. He could have asked, "What are those marks on your neck?"

OR

he could have said, "I notice marks on the back of your neck...." {pause to see if BC says anything in response to that statement which no, is not worded exactly as a question} followed by {sounds of crickets chirping}

[raisincharlie]

RC,

Just for my own edification, could the conversation have gone like this?

LE: Mr. Cooper, I know that this matter is distressing to you, please understand that we will do all that we can to find your wife and return her home safely. I can see that you are upset, if we can do anything to help, we will be glad to do so. I see you have injuries, do you need medical attention for them?

BC: Thank you, yes, it is upsetting, I have been up since 4AM attending to the kids... and getting some items at the store so that we had food for their breakfast.....

CyberPro

LE can indeed be "tricky" that way. Draw attention to something to see how it is responded too. So yes it could have been this simple and innocent sounding.

[reddress58]

We don't know how the detective actually worded his (statement or question) to Brad. He could have asked, "What are those marks on your neck?"

OR

he could have said, "I notice marks on the back of your neck...." {pause to see if BC says anything in response to that statement which no, is not worded exactly as a question} followed by {sounds of crickets chirping}
In all his frantic morning activites (cleaning, body disposing, shopping, car vaccuming, laundry doing, Katie watching, etc.), it may have been the first time BC was aware that scratches even existed on his neck. That is if LE brought it to his attention, which you guys seem to think they did. I still think the SW should say, "When asked about the scratches on his neck, BC gave no explanation."

[reddress58]

RC,

Just for my own edification, could the conversation have gone like this?

LE: Mr. Cooper, I know that this matter is distressing to you, please understand that we will do all that we can to find your wife and return her home safely. I can see that you are upset, if we can do anything to help, we will be glad to do so. I see you have injuries, do you need medical attention for them?

BC: Thank you, yes, it is upsetting, I have been up since 4AM attending to the kids... and getting some items at the store so that we had food for their breakfast.....

CyberPro
Yes, now I can see how this could be done. (note to self: think outside the box)

[raisincharlie]

In all his frantic morning activites (cleaning, body disposing, shopping, car vaccuming, laundry doing, Katie watching, etc.), it may have been the first time BC was aware that scratches even existed on his neck. That is if LE brought it to his attention, which you guys seem to think they did. I still think the SW should say, "When asked about the scratches on his neck, BC gave no explanation."

Respectfully - a search warrant affidavit is not testimony. If or when this officer is called to the stand, he will provide the details of this conversation. Especially if Brad's DNA ends up being found say under a nail on one of Nancy's hands for foundation purposes. A search warrant affidavit is necessarily limited.

[SleuthyGal]

http://i37.tinypic.com/aw96yu.jpg

So we know Daniels SAID something to BC about those marks we just don't know HOW he said it. Define "advise" in the context of police interviewing. ???

[reddress58]

http://i37.tinypic.com/aw96yu.jpg

So we know Daniels SAID something to BC about those marks we just don't know HOW he said it. Define "advise" in the context of police interviewing. ???
The "advise" word didn't stand out when I read it. I take it that means "brought to the attention of". Still wonder how Brad responded.

[SleuthyGal]

The "advise" word didn't stand out when I read it. I take it that means "brought to the attention of". Still wonder how Brad responded.

I'm thinking it was several long seconds of crickets chirping...and dead silence.

[reddress58]

I'm thinking it was several long seconds of crickets chirping...and dead silence.
...because he hadn't noticed them before!

[CyberPro]

http://i37.tinypic.com/aw96yu.jpg

So we know Daniels SAID something to BC about those marks we just don't know HOW he said it. Define "advise" in the context of police interviewing. ???

When I was in EMS, we used radios to communicate between dispatch and the ambulances, and from ambulance to hospital. We use the same dispatch and communications center that LE uses, although we had dispatchers that were dedicated to handling EMS communications for that shift, I think they rotate positions from time to time, and attend the same training.

We also used to spend a lot of time listening to police and fire radio traffic on scanner radios, because what started out as a fire or police call might end up needing us. So, you begin to hear language that is a form of verbal boilerplate. It is standard, and means the same to those who are in the business, but might not be understood in the same context by those who do not talk on those systems regularly.

In that context, the word "advise" usually refers to information, usually presented by someone who is on-scene or has detailed knowledge of a person or place due to their frequent visits there, or a fairly complete level of understanding on a situation.

When advise is used in this manner relating to the observations of the detective, it would mean that he saw the marks, gathered his observations as to possible causes, and asked in one form or another for information from BC, but was unable to gain a meaningful response. In that context, he is "advising" whomever might be reading his report that the interviewee did not offer a meaningful response when asked about the marks.

When used on the radio, this might be a question to dispatch to get some information from someone who is on-scene and has a better understanding of the situation. Such as the direction to approach from, or to use caution when approaching.

CyberPro

[SleuthyGal]

...because he hadn't noticed them before! He was probably thinking, "DOH! I should have put on a turtleneck shirt!!!"

[raisincharlie]

http://i37.tinypic.com/aw96yu.jpg

So we know Daniels SAID something to BC about those marks we just don't know HOW he said it. Define "advise" in the context of police interviewing. ???

I think you will find that will vary from detective to detective but in this case it seems the overall approach of Cary PD was to keep him talking for as long as possible. This approach IMO is very civilized and non accusatory - the old catch more flies with sugar than salt approach. With all Brad did tell them, this approach seemed to have worked quite well. They got a lot of information out of him.

If you will recall in the Young case - LE immediately started questioning JY's friends, apparently in a manner that led them to believe LE was accusing JY. They got on the phone and called him to warn him - the end result was JY totally refused to speak with LE from the beginning - even before he returned to Raleigh.

So advise and how it is done will be variable.

[ncnative]

I've reached the decision that there are too many folks here with too many serious decisions going on in their heads. I'm thinking that it's time for me to back away from this for a while. I'm hoping to come back when there is more authoritative info from LE and the like. WS is feeling like an obsession sometimes, so I need time to detox this obsession from my brain.

I'm off to enjoy :sunshine: the day. Sleuth on, soldiers.:crosseyed:

[SleuthyGal]

If you will recall in the Young case - LE immediately started questioning JY's friends,

I'm sorry to have to admit that my knowledge of the Young case is on the same level of my knowledge of quantum physics. Sorely lacking, and I have some big time catching up to do there (with the Young case...Physics can wait even longer). :jester:

[reddress58]

He was probably thinking, "DOH! I should have put on a turtleneck shirt!!!"
They were on the left side of the BACK of his neck. Since they were small, they most likely didn't hurt. So unless he took a hand mirror & did a rear view look, he may not have noticed themr. (you know what I'm talking about...that rearview peekaboo that we ladies avoid doing at all costs unless we are in the dressing room three-way under that hideous lighting and have no control over the mirrors. You'd think the department stores would learn to use softer lighting. totally off topic. sorry)

[SleuthyGal]

They were on the left side of the BACK of his neck. Since they were small, they most likely didn't hurt. So unless he took a hand mirror & did a rear view look, he may not have noticed themr. (you know what I'm talking about...that rearview peekaboo that we ladies avoid doing at all costs unless we are in the dressing room three-way under that hideous lighting and have no control over the mirrors. You'd think the department stores would learn to use softer lighting. totally off topic. sorry)

Excellent point! yes, back/left of neck. And frankly who wants to see if their neck looks scratched butt looks big in a mirror facing back there! :innocent: :butthead:

[raisincharlie]

I'm sorry to have to admit that my knowledge of the Young case is on the same level of my knowledge of quantum physics. Sorely lacking, and I have some big time catching up to do there (with the Young case...Physics can wait even longer).

Not much to catch up on with respect to this issue - LE was aggressive - JY shut up and has said absolutely zero to LE with regards to anything relating either to himself or his murdered wife.

So does anyone know if Nancy was left handed or right handed by any chance?

[Star12]

http://i37.tinypic.com/aw96yu.jpg

So we know Daniels SAID something to BC about those marks we just don't know HOW he said it. Define "advise" in the context of police interviewing. ???

To me, it means that Daniels told the affiant about it. Daniels may or may not have asked BC about it, but then Daniels said he (Daniels) was unable to determine the cause, and BC didn't offer one.

[reddress58]

To me, it means that Daniels told the affiant about it. Daniels may or may not have asked BC about it, but then Daniels said he (Daniels) was unable to determine the cause, and BC didn't offer one.
advised as in saying "I notice you have scratches on your neck."?

[Star12]

Not much to catch up on with respect to this issue - LE was aggressive - JY shut up and has said absolutely zero to LE with regards to anything relating either to himself or his murdered wife.

So does anyone know if Nancy was left handed or right handed by any chance?

RC, I wouldn't think that would have a bearing on the scratches. I think she would use whichever hand was near the left side of the neck. Certainly, if they were facing, she would not cross over his body to reach behind his neck.

[raisincharlie]

RC, I wouldn't think that would have a bearing on the scratches. I think she would use whichever hand was near the left side of the neck. Certainly, if they were facing, she would not cross over his body to reach behind his neck.

Just a question since Gary Rentz said he taught her to hold her keys a certain way and the keys were found by the door instead of on her person as was her habit.

[Star12]

Just a question since Gary Rentz said he taught her to hold her keys a certain way and the keys were found by the door instead of on her person as was her habit.

Ooooh, okay, gotcha. I thought we still were on the scratches.

And btw, good for Garry. I never leave a building (shopping, my work building, etc.) without my keys in my hand, just so I don't have to fumble for them standing in a parking lot with my purse all open and me vulnerable and not paying attention to my surroundings.

I do hope all in the Rentz family, and the girls, are doing well.

[raisincharlie]

Ooooh, okay, gotcha. I thought we still were on the scratches.

And btw, good for Garry. I do hope all in his family, and the girls, are doing well.

I haven't moved on from the scratches - just thinking finger nail scratches and scratches made by a key might be very different in both size and attributes.

[SleuthyGal]

I haven't moved on from the scratches - just thinking finger nail scratches and scratches made by a key might be very different in both size and attributes.

Hopefully there is DNA evidence on whatever she used to scratch him, be it fingernail or keys.

[Star12]

I haven't moved on from the scratches - just thinking finger nail scratches and scratches made by a key might be very different in both size and attributes.

They did say they were small scratches, though. I wonder if they took photos. I can't remember now, did the return say anything about photos? I remember there was something unexpected in the BC's physical return.

[SleuthyGal]

They did say they were small scratches, though. I wonder if they took photos. I can't remember now, did the return say anything about photos? I remember there was something unexpected in the BC's physical return.

They listed "Photographs of Bradley Cooper" as items taken during execution of the SW on his home, along with swabs for DNA/forensic analysis. Perhaps that covers it.

[raisincharlie]

They did say they were small scratches, though. I wonder if they took photos. I can't remember now, did the return say anything about photos? I remember there was something unexpected in the BC's physical return.

That is uncertain to me Star. Item 1 in the inventory says photographs of Bradley Graham Cooper followed by item 2 which are cheek swabs. item 3 are finger prints.

Perhaps one can think they took photos of Brad while collecting the DNA swabs and prints, and it seems this would be likely. But we do know they didn't draw blood now.:)

[Star12]

That is uncertain to me Star. Item 1 in the inventory says photographs of Bradley Graham Cooper followed by item 2 which are cheek swabs. item 3 are finger prints.

Perhaps one can think they took photos of Brad while collecting the DNA swabs and prints, and it seems this would be likely. But we do know they didn't draw blood now.:)

Let's discuss that for a minute. The reason they would NOT take blood is...perhaps it would be pointless because there was no blood to match his to? DNA would be covered by the cheek swab.

[raisincharlie]

Let's discuss that for a minute. The reason they would NOT take blood is...perhaps it would be pointless because there was no blood to match his to? DNA would be covered by the cheek swab.

The cheek swab would cover all DNA issues Star. I don't think I would read that any further. The thing that strikes me about the cheek swabs - faster laboratory turn around time on cheek swabs than on blood.

[Star12]

The cheek swab would cover all DNA issues Star. I don't think I would read that any further. The thing that strikes me about the cheek swabs - faster laboratory turn around time on cheek swabs than on blood.

Right, but I was more thinking of blood typing.

[raisincharlie]

Right, but I was more thinking of blood typing.

Blood typing, seems everyone has moved on from this because DNA is so precise. From an investigation stand point it actually holds little value. It can also be done on the spot without pulling a blood sample.

[Zeke]

In the spirit of full disclosure, the term "White Tornado" originated on a commercial for a cleaning product. I think it was Ajax liquid, on the commercial you would open the bottle and a cartoon White Tornado would come spinning out of the bottle and leave everything behing spotlessly clean.

To this day, when we have a major cleaning project going on at home, we refer to it as cleaning like a White Tornado.

I keep looking at the store for the bottle that actually contains the White Tornado that does the cleaning for you, but I have not found it yet. :)

CyberPro

Hi CyberPro,

You're right, it was Ajax. One of their ads is located on this page: http://www.roadode.com/clean_1.shtml


Zeke

[jumpstreet]

I think that's because you don't understand what I mean by 'legal decision in a court of law' and how that is made, versus one's personal opinion and beliefs in a case (which are not to be used to render a verdict). I've explained it as clearly as I can.

I think I'm with you on that one now. Previously I equated returning a guilty verdict with the notion: "based on the evidence/testimony presented, you feel beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime". In my mind, those were one and the same. If I understand it though, you're saying they're not one and the same at all, and in fact you can have the latter, without the former. Is that right?

Regardless, even if we forget a 'courtroom' for the moment, I guess I still struggle a bit (based on current knowns) with concluding to a point of zero (or very little) doubt (even as a personal opinion) that he is guilty, without even knowing some keys things as COD, forensic results, etc.

However, I hear and respect that this is your opinion, and that's cool!

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?

[maconrich]

Blood typing, seems everyone has moved on from this because DNA is so precise. From an investigation stand point it actually holds little value. It can also be done on the spot without pulling a blood sample.

But as mom pointed out it could have been a way to get a better look at his arms (if they were covered by long sleeves).

With the marks on his neck, I was thinking more of the possible painted pink fingernail, but the keys are logical considering her father and friends statements (using them as a weapon).

And as far as him not saying how he got them, I'll admit I was a bit confused and wondered if he just gave them a blank look or shrug of the shoulders. The main thing, I guess, was that it gave them the 'in' to ask to look around.


JS, FWIW, I totally believe he did it, but right now all I'd be able to find him guilty of is being a controlling moron :loser:

[Star12]

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?

You would need to go through the evidence we have seen that points to his guilt and come up with a logical, not speculative (no "could have, might have") alternative, real exculpatory evidence. For each and every piece. And then all those pieces need to fit together in a reasonable progression. Unfortunately, we're not writing a script here with alternate endings.

So, that being said, with all due respect and incredible curiosity, just what is it that makes youthink BC did not do it?

[raisincharlie]

But as mom pointed out it could have been a way to get a better look at his arms (if they were covered by long sleeves).

With the marks on his neck, I was thinking more of the possible painted pink fingernail, but the keys are logical considering her father and friends statements (using them as a weapon).

And as far as him not saying how he got them, I'll admit I was a bit confused and wondered if he just gave them a blank look or shrug of the shoulders. The main thing, I guess, was that it gave them the 'in' to ask to look around.


JS, FWIW, I totally believe he did it, but right now all I'd be able to find him guilty of is being a controlling moron :loser:

I agree - the blood draw would give LE a look at at least one arm, however it seems like there is a good possibility that LE took pictures of Brad. Don't know of what but in the end this is better - pictures if they reveal anything can be used in court and for the jury to see and review. So it seems to me if indeed pictures were taken and those included any scratches etcetera, it would be a visual document to assist a statement that someone saw scratches.

I thought of the key because of what Gary Rentz said and also because the LE officer only referenced scratches on one side of Brad's neck, may have been more, dunno. One side, his left side, indicates to my way of thinking if he were facing someone - that someone was right handed to have left scratches on his left. Two hands could be used so theoretically there should be scratches on both sides. Holding a key as taught however and the person was right handed, would limit the damage to an attackers left side.

Don't pay much attention - just thinking out loud. :D

[jumpstreet]

So, that being said, with all due respect and incredible curiosity, just what is it that makes youthink BC did not do it?

Whoa... I never said I thought he didn't do it. In fact, I've said based on the current knowns, that I think (more likely than not), he probably did do it. [ Of course I've read through all the stuff, and it's upon that stuff that I base this view]

However, after reading it all, I'm just not convinced beyond the shadow of (or all reasonable) doubt that he did do it. Not yet. Too many unknowns for me still.

Therefore, I'm open to the possibility that he may be innocent. [ ie, I do not consider it an impossibility ] Improbability, sure... but impossibility... no.

Am I totally alone in that thinking?

[rwesafe]

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?

I believe that it is within the realm of possibility (maybe small) that he did not do it.

I was married to a man who was diagnosed with NPD. It was a horrendous experience. Brad does not seem that controlling to me as he lacks many of the characteristics that are common with those consumed with their own perceived image and those that would only serve as an extension of his image. He seems like a man who did not want to risk coming home only to find that his children had been taken away from him. It is entirely possible that NC had convinced him that it would be best for the girls to be in Canada with her and maybe at one point it seemed logical to him and then, after much thought, not so much. Perhaps he offered her up alternatives and she would not consider anything other than taking the kids to Canada. I'm not saying I would kill someone to keep them from taking my kid, but if taking their passport would prevent it, that passport would be in my possession under lock and key!

I looked through all of the pictures I can find on the various sites that had pictures that showed NC's hands. None of the pictures show her nails painted or with gel or acrylic type nails. Not to say she did not paint them before the party....

There was also a statement in a presser where the family was in attendance and the BL spoke for them...that I found a bit enlightening, simply because it came from her twins husband....I don't recall the words verbatim, but I'm sure you can find it in the media section where the BIL indicates that Bella, is doing fine, she is strong willed and will let you know when she does not like something you say or do...he then states, Nancy was always like that too. I think that this makes Nancy sound like a very strong woman, not one who could easily be controlled. Not typically the type a NPD'd person would have any interest in.

I'm sure my husbands hair is my trunk too and I tend to take him to the airport in my car and he sheds like a dang cat and it is always stuck on his black luggage (he is blonde). Just out of curiosity, because I am always digging my very active childs toys out from under my car, I checked to see if there was any hair in my fender well, and there was indeed. Not completely out of the realm of possibility that if it was her hair, she was often doing the same. It also appeared I had run over something disgusting :sick:

Anyway, I hope that he did not do it, for the sake of those little girls....

[jumpstreet]

I believe that it is within the realm of possibility (maybe small) that he did not do it.


Welcome rwesafe!... and thanks for the response.

[Star12]

Whoa... I never said I thought he didn't do it. In fact, I've said based on the current knowns, that I think (more likely than not), he probably did do it. [ Of course I've read through all the stuff, and it's upon that stuff that I base this view]

However, after reading it all, I'm just not convinced beyond the shadow of (or all reasonable) doubt that he did do it. Not yet. Too many unknowns for me still.

Therefore, I'm open to the possibility that he may be innocent. [ ie, I do not consider it an impossibility ] Improbability, sure... but impossibility... no.

Am I totally alone in that thinking?

Okay, well then, in that case, let's just discuss the issues in the case and should any of those issues point to the possibility of BC being innocent, we can discuss that then. No sense beating a dead horse in a coat of many colors, eh? X:argue:, XX X:other_beatingA_Dead

[rwesafe]

Welcome rwesafe!... and thanks for the response.

Thanks for the welcome! I have been lurking here for a long time. I'm friends with one of the neighbors and affi givers for NC and I am slightly paranoid about posting.:silenced: I have just become addicted to this case though....

[maconrich]

I agree - the blood draw would give LE a look at at least one arm, however it seems like there is a good possibility that LE took pictures of Brad. Don't know of what but in the end this is better - pictures if they reveal anything can be used in court and for the jury to see and review. So it seems to me if indeed pictures were taken and those included any scratches etcetera, it would be a visual document to assist a statement that someone saw scratches.

I thought of the key because of what Gary Rentz said and also because the LE officer only referenced scratches on one side of Brad's neck, may have been more, dunno. One side, his left side, indicates to my way of thinking if he were facing someone - that someone was right handed to have left scratches on his left. Two hands could be used so theoretically there should be scratches on both sides. Holding a key as taught however and the person was right handed, would limit the damage to an attackers left side.

Don't pay much attention - just thinking out loud. :D

But I always pay close attention because you see things logically plus pick up on so much that I tend to overlook. (I tend get ticked off at something and then the emotions take over blurring the logic. With the sw's it was his declarations of ownership that had me po'd to no end and back.)

Pictures are good! - hopefully NC was able to inflict some damage that will help convict her killer. And, yes the keys make much more sense than nails for the reasons you provide!! Hmmmm...wonder if they tested them for his dna or bits of skin??

[RKAB]

I was married to a man who was diagnosed with NPD. It was a horrendous experience. Brad does not seem that controlling to me as he lacks many of the characteristics that are common with those consumed with their own perceived image and those that would only serve as an extension of his image. He seems like a man who did not want to risk coming home only to find that his children had been taken away from him.

Welcome! I am glad that you made it away from your husband. You're very lucky! I bet it was very hard to get away from.

From Wikepedia, NPD can be defined as:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:[1]

1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique
4) requires excessive admiration
5) has a sense of entitlement
6) is interpersonally exploitative
7) lacks empathy
8) is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

From my own personal knowledge of Brad, I would have to say that he would easily fit into 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (unless he has managed to outgrow previous behaviours, which I don't think would happen without a lot of therapy). I believe that in not wanting the kids to go to Canada was just yet another form of control.

Brad controlled Nancy financially by giving her an allowance, not allowing her to earn money on her own, removing her from bank accounts and household accounts, not to mention taking the kids' passports. I also wonder if he drug his feet on helping her to get a work visa so that she might have the ability to work (which would also give her a better ability to leave him).

Unfortunately, I think he had a lot of control over her because without his ok, she could never leave the USA with the kids. She was a great mother and she was never going to leave her children with him in order for her to get away from him. And now, sadly, she has paid an awful price.

[EntreNous]

Motive, no alibi, scratches on his neck he cannot or rather refuses to explain, and his own lies regarding timeline are enough for me to convict. Too many "remarkable coincidences" to actually be coincidences.

A court of law (wrongly imo) convicted the WM3 with much, much less.

[rwesafe]

Welcome! I am glad that you made it away from your husband. You're very lucky! I bet it was very hard to get away from.

From Wikepedia, NPD can be defined as:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:[1]

1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique
4) requires excessive admiration
5) has a sense of entitlement
6) is interpersonally exploitative
7) lacks empathy
8) is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

From my own personal knowledge of Brad, I would have to say that he would easily fit into 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (unless he has managed to outgrow previous behaviours, which I don't think would happen without a lot of therapy). I believe that in not wanting the kids to go to Canada was just yet another form of control.

Brad controlled Nancy financially by giving her an allowance, not allowing her to earn money on her own, removing her from bank accounts and household accounts, not to mention taking the kids' passports. I also wonder if he drug his feet on helping her to get a work visa so that she might have the ability to work (which would also give her a better ability to leave him).

Unfortunately, I think he had a lot of control over her because without his ok, she could never leave the USA with the kids. She was a great mother and she was never going to leave her children with him in order for her to get away from him. And now, sadly, she has paid an awful price.

I respect your opinion and he may very well be what you assume him to be, but having lived with one for 8 years, I don't see it with what I have read. The main thing about NPD's is that you are not considered a person, nor a possesion, you are merely an extension of them. NPD's generally do not want or have children. They take attention away from them and their sense of entitlement (your full attention)is threatened. They have NO EMPATHY, which means they DETEST infants that cry and hurt themselves and are needy and dependent. I cannot express how much they detest infants, yet NC herself indicated that she saw him as a fit father...Only when the children are older and can offer the NPD adoration and they themselves become sources of Narcissistic supply do they seem even remotely useful to a true NPD.

I did not get an allowance, I was not allowed to close the door to go to the bathroom, I did not get to go to the store or parties or the beach by myself and he made sure I had little to no contact with friends or family. NPD's are usually amongst some of the most charming people you will meet. Street angels...house devils. They will normally go out of their way to endear anyone close to you, knowing full well if you claim they act differently than what others have witnessed, it will be you that looks the fool.

I don't find the fact that he took her name off the accounts and credit cards, etc., all that odd. They were divorcing and that is what you do when you are getting a divorce. I see it done all the time. Additionally, if he were a true NPD, her name would have never been on any of them to begin with.

But, again, he may very well what you say he is, and perhaps the NPD'd have evolved in the 13 years since I have been rid of mine.

[raisincharlie]

But I always pay close attention because you see things logically plus pick up on so much that I tend to overlook. (I tend get ticked off at something and then the emotions take over blurring the logic. With the sw's it was his declarations of ownership that had me po'd to no end and back.)

Pictures are good! - hopefully NC was able to inflict some damage that will help convict her killer. And, yes the keys make much more sense than nails for the reasons you provide!! Hmmmm...wonder if they tested them for his dna or bits of skin??

Maconrich - I found the location of the car and house keys to be a red flag. Unfortunately - the location of the keys was noted by LE on the 12th - the day Nancy went missing. Also noted in the affidavit was the FACT that the spare key to the X5 was secured inside the X5. This pretty much confirms what the friends claimed - that Nancy always kept her keys with her so Brad could not get into items she kept secured in the X5. That is why finding the key by the front door was IMO a huge red flag.

Looking through the inventory, there is no listing for the keys or for Nancy's cell phone. At this point I would say there is not a high likelyhood that LE has possession of either the keys or her cell phone.

[Star12]

RC: What was noted in the affidavit about the key was what the interviews with friends said. I didn't see anything that said it actually was found in the SUV.

[raisincharlie]

RC: What was noted in the affidavit about the key was what the interviews with friends said. I didn't see anything that said it actually was found in the SUV.

Some of the friends affidavits talk about Nancy always having the keys, even sleeping with the keys on her person because she did not want Brad to get into things she kept in the X5. Page 4 of the affidavit, middle of the third paragraph describes where the keys (X5 and house key) were found. Page 5 of the affidavit near the bottom of the last paragraph confirms the spare key to the X5 was secured inside the X5.

[jumpstreet]

Looking through the inventory, there is no listing for the keys or for Nancy's cell phone. At this point I would say there is not a high likelyhood that LE has possession of either the keys or her cell phone.

There was a phone and charger procured from the workplace if I recall. That struck me as somewhat odd. There was also the statement that BC made a trip out to the workplace sometime after the 12th...

[Star12]

nnnnnhhh, RC, am I blind, or what? The last paragraph of page 5 details the cleaning of the trunk of the sedan, and the receipts and stuff in the passenger area. I don't see anywhere where it says the spare SUV key was found.

[raisincharlie]

There was a phone and charger procured from the workplace if I recall. That struck me as somewhat odd. There was also the statement that BC made a trip out to the workplace sometime after the 12th...

I was aware of the phone and charger being taken from his office but can't say I can conclude anything about it. At that point, if it turns out to be Nancy's, any fingerprints or DNA of his on the phone should be expected and that source of potential evidence is erased. Don't need to have the phone to get the records for it though.

[Star12]

On page 3 is the detail from the friends intervies, and where it says "A spare key....was secured... is still a summary of the friends' interviews. Is that what you are meaning? To me it is not saying they actually found it there. If you read the last 3 lines on that page you can see it is a recap of what the interviewees had said.

[raisincharlie]

On page 3 is the detail from the friends intervies, and where it says "A spare key....was secured... is still a summary of the friends' interviews. Is that what you are meaning? To me it is not saying they actually found it there. If you read the last 3 lines on that page you can see it is a recap of what the interviewees had said.

From my experience - facts are routinely checked. The pictures showed LE in the X5 - you think they didn't verify ? I believe they did.

[Star12]

From my experience - facts are routinely checked. The pictures showed LE in the X5 - you think they didn't verify ? I believe they did.

Bubba, I do believe, I do believe they found it, too. But what I was taking issue with is where you said it was a FACT, and belief isn't that. I do wish they had been more specific -- and also wish they had said more about Nancy's writings documenting BC's actions, which are mentioned. I, too, kept a daily diary, which proved very valuable for my atty. :coffeecup: Theres a little treat for you!

[raisincharlie]

Bubba, I do believe, I do believe they found it, too. But what I was taking issue with is where you said it was a FACT, and belief isn't that. I do wish they had been more specific -- and also wish they had said more about Nancy's writings documenting BC's actions, which are mentioned. I, too, kept a daily diary, which proved very valuable for my atty. :coffeecup: Theres a little treat for you!

I can see how such a daily diary would indeed be very useful. Lets hope Nancy's provides significant information. Guess this might explain why K & B wanted Ms. Stubbs removed from the custody case ?

I see your point. No problem. Most of the time I am on another planet and forget others aren't there.

The location where the keys were found still remain a red flag for me however.

[jumpstreet]

Okay, well then, in that case, let's just discuss the issues in the case and should any of those issues point to the possibility of BC being innocent, we can discuss that then. No sense beating a dead horse in a coat of many colors, eh?

Gee, I guess I thought it was a reasonable question (given the recent warrant unsealing, and the recent discussions on the board) whether or not there was anyone whose personal opinion still allowed for the possibility (however small) that BC didn't commit the crime.

I didn't necessarily see that query as 'beating a dead horse' or anything - sorry if it seemed that way to you.

Seems there are some here that have zero doubt that BC did it (and don't allow for any possibility that he didn't), and there are some (myself included), that do at least concede that there remains a chance (if not highly likely) that he's innocent. I respect everyone's opinions/positions though, and hopefully my posts are consistent in showing that respect (it's certainly my intention)

Hopefully all respectful perspectives/analysis/queries are still welcome on the board, and again, sorry if you felt the question was 'beating a dead horse' (still not sure exactly why).

Anyway, for some specific things that strike me as supporting innocence, I'll post that separately (found the specifics posted by rwesafe to be of interest).

[Daphne69]

RC, about the keys. Did Garry Rentz specify how he taught Nancy to hold her keys? When I read that, I thought about the way I'd been taught: Keys are held with the keyring in your palm and each key poking out between your fingers, hand closed. (Like a spiked fist.)

If NC held her keys like that, I don't see the keys making the scratches. I was thinking more along the lines of BC being over NC -- choking? hitting? -- (facing each other) and her getting her arm around the back of his neck. Explains the scratches being light and the possible fingernail.

[CyberPro]

Gee, I guess I thought it was a reasonable question (given the recent warrant unsealing, and the recent discussions on the board) whether or not there was anyone whose personal opinion still allowed for the possibility (however small) that BC didn't commit the crime.

I didn't necessarily see that query as 'beating a dead horse' or anything - sorry if it seemed that way to you.

Seems there are some here that have zero doubt that BC did it (and don't allow for any possibility that he didn't), and there are some (myself included), that do at least concede that there remains a chance (if not highly likely) that he's innocent. I respect everyone's opinions/positions though, and hopefully my posts are consistent in showing that respect (it's certainly my intention)

Hopefully all respectful perspectives/analysis/queries are still welcome on the board, and again, sorry if you felt the question was 'beating a dead horse' (still not sure exactly why).

Anyway, for some specific things that strike me as supporting innocence, I'll post that separately (found the specifics posted by rwesafe to be of interest).

Jumpstreet,

I am open to the possibility that BC is innocent. I do not really believe that he is, but I am open to the possibility.

This is the first case that I have been following on WS, but my wife watches a lot of the cable news shows, and I picked up a lot on the Laci case by osmosis. I do not watch much TV at all, so I was not paying rapt attention, but I got many of the details.

I told her while that case was going on that if SP was innocent, he could give lessons for a fee on how to act guilty. I believe that BC falls into that same category. His actions, situation and inconsistent story and timelines aggregate to make him look very guilty.

We do not have all the facts yet, and some of the things that we are treating as facts might have a different explanation, some of the things you would really need to see for yourself, like the marks on his neck. I can envision a situation where he was really upset during the argument or something where he reached up and grabbed the back of his own neck and left some marks, but I think there are other explanations that make more sense, given the situations.

I am over 97% sure he is guilty, I think he is solely responsible, but there could be an accomplice. I am willing to hold back from 100%, but just barely able to hold back.

CyberPro

[wirehair]

There is a broad range when talking about behavior disorders. Some people exibit extreme controlling behaviors while someone with a moderate problem who also lives with a strong person can not get by with as much. An extreme person would probably choose a weaker partner who would submit readily sometimes out of fear or just not wanting to buck the other partner. Sometimes a weaker person becomes stronger over time and that is when the problems start. The controller feels the need to control but also sees the power to control easily being lost due to the partner becoming stronger emotionally. The controller then may cross the line to violence in order to maintain control. Nancy had a very large support group. I'm sure over the years it made her a strong woman. Maybe over time she realized that she didn't have to give to the control and that is when the problems started. Abuse is the weapon of a coward.

[reddress58]

Bubba, I do believe, I do believe they found it, too. But what I was taking issue with is where you said it was a FACT, and belief isn't that. I do wish they had been more specific -- and also wish they had said more about Nancy's writings documenting BC's actions, which are mentioned. I, too, kept a daily diary, which proved very valuable for my atty. :coffeecup: Theres a little treat for you!
I agree with Star here. It was not stated as such in the SW's. We are assuming.

[raisincharlie]

RC, about the keys. Did Garry Rentz specify how he taught Nancy to hold her keys? When I read that, I thought about the way I'd been taught: Keys are held with the keyring in your palm and each key poking out between your fingers, hand closed. (Like a spiked fist.)

If NC held her keys like that, I don't see the keys making the scratches. I was thinking more along the lines of BC being over NC -- choking? hitting? -- (facing each other) and her getting her arm around the back of his neck. Explains the scratches being light and the possible fingernail.

I have no idea Daphne. I don't even know how that would be taught to tell you the truth - will take your explanation however. :)

I try not to go into theories of how something went down except for obvious things. It seems it never fails that when something goes to court, LE has infinitely more information on which to base their theory of how things happened and the order in which they happened. :o

[raisincharlie]

I agree with Star here. It was not stated as such in the SW's. We are assuming.

So are you still assuming he went to HT at 4 am ?

[Anderson]

I believe that it is within the realm of possibility (maybe small) that he did not do it.

I was married to a man who was diagnosed with NPD. It was a horrendous experience. Brad does not seem that controlling to me as he lacks many of the characteristics that are common with those consumed with their own perceived image and those that would only serve as an extension of his image. He seems like a man who did not want to risk coming home only to find that his children had been taken away from him. It is entirely possible that NC had convinced him that it would be best for the girls to be in Canada with her and maybe at one point it seemed logical to him and then, after much thought, not so much. Perhaps he offered her up alternatives and she would not consider anything other than taking the kids to Canada. I'm not saying I would kill someone to keep them from taking my kid, but if taking their passport would prevent it, that passport would be in my possession under lock and key!

I looked through all of the pictures I can find on the various sites that had pictures that showed NC's hands. None of the pictures show her nails painted or with gel or acrylic type nails. Not to say she did not paint them before the party....

There was also a statement in a presser where the family was in attendance and the BL spoke for them...that I found a bit enlightening, simply because it came from her twins husband....I don't recall the words verbatim, but I'm sure you can find it in the media section where the BIL indicates that Bella, is doing fine, she is strong willed and will let you know when she does not like something you say or do...he then states, Nancy was always like that too. I think that this makes Nancy sound like a very strong woman, not one who could easily be controlled. Not typically the type a NPD'd person would have any interest in.

I'm sure my husbands hair is my trunk too and I tend to take him to the airport in my car and he sheds like a dang cat and it is always stuck on his black luggage (he is blonde). Just out of curiosity, because I am always digging my very active childs toys out from under my car, I checked to see if there was any hair in my fender well, and there was indeed. Not completely out of the realm of possibility that if it was her hair, she was often doing the same. It also appeared I had run over something disgusting :sick:

Anyway, I hope that he did not do it, for the sake of those little girls....

Have a look at the "saddest party ever" picture on the memorial site (she has her arms around her friends shoulder). Her nails look like they are painted pink in that picture, although you have to blow it up to see. Tell me if you think I am wrong, though.

IMO, I think that Brad was clearly controlling. We have counted the ways so many times: withholding passports and money, possible threats to commit suicide etc. I believe, according to the affidavits, at one point he was telling NC to leave with the children. He may have changed his mind when he realized what the separation was going to cost.

Thanks for your comments based on your experience with BC, RKAB. They certainly add to this picture. You are brave.

BTW, I think that the dress is black (could it be dark green?) in that picture, rather than green. We are still just assuming that this picture was taken on July 11th.

[raisincharlie]

:clap: :clap: :clap:



There is a broad range when talking about behavior disorders. Some people exibit extreme controlling behaviors while someone with a moderate problem who also lives with a strong person can not get by with as much. An extreme person would probably choose a weaker partner who would submit readily sometimes out of fear or just not wanting to buck the other partner. Sometimes a weaker person becomes stronger over time and that is when the problems start. The controller feels the need to control but also sees the power to control easily being lost due to the partner becoming stronger emotionally. The controller then may cross the line to violence in order to maintain control. Nancy had a very large support group. I'm sure over the years it made her a strong woman. Maybe over time she realized that she didn't have to give to the control and that is when the problems started. Abuse is the weapon of a coward.

[jumpstreet]

I am open to the possibility that BC is innocent. [...]
I am over 97% sure he is guilty, I think he is solely responsible, but there could be an accomplice. I am willing to hold back from 100%, but just barely able to hold back

Good stuff - thanks Cyber - well put.

[wirehair]

I believe that when BC told NC that she could take the kids to Canada that it was an attempt to lead her into false hope that everything was going to work in her favor. She probably let her guard down a little then. He thought that when he turned around and said no that he would get her to submit to being controlled and stay here. That's when he really clamped down on the allowance and control of the money. Closing bank accounts that are only half yours is outright theft. The proper way is to take half the money and open a new account. Then you have acted in a way that is above board. Denying the other spouse money or maintainence will really backfire and not in your favor. BC was constantly seeing that he was really losing control of all situations and decided to take the next step. One day soon I hope that he sees what it's like for someone else to control the rest of his life "assuming he is guilty".

[reddress58]

So are you still assuming he went to HT at 4 am ?
I am not summarizing or stating something that LE said in a SW without clarifying that I'm assuming an outcome that wasn't mention specifically. With HT I am stating that Mom actually told us something...we all can read what she told us. You are mixing two things here.

[SleuthyGal]

A few days ago I posted this:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2605466&postcount=332

and it was pointed out to me earlier today that some of you might have thought I was somehow referring to Jason Young in that post. And LOLOLOL. OMG NO! :doh:

"J.A. Young" is a Sr. Police Officer with the Cary Police Dept and he was the one who took the lead in getting the search warrants and probable cause affidavit in the Cooper case. It is his signature on the probable cause affidavit and SWs. He is the one I was referring to in that previous post.

For the record, I would never want wife killer Jason Young (let alone any murderer) to be anywhere in my vicinity, let alone near my house or my dog or even mowing my lawn (no matter how much I hate mowing the lawn)!! :eek:

Whew. I feel better. I got a hearty laugh though at what some of you must have thought when I said I "wanted to give J. Young a big hug...have a beer, and ask him questions..." :floorlaugh: :D

[maconrich]

Maconrich - I found the location of the car and house keys to be a red flag. Unfortunately - the location of the keys was noted by LE on the 12th - the day Nancy went missing. Also noted in the affidavit was the FACT that the spare key to the X5 was secured inside the X5. This pretty much confirms what the friends claimed - that Nancy always kept her keys with her so Brad could not get into items she kept secured in the X5. That is why finding the key by the front door was IMO a huge red flag.

Looking through the inventory, there is no listing for the keys or for Nancy's cell phone. At this point I would say there is not a high likelyhood that LE has possession of either the keys or her cell phone.

ITA on them being a red flag and it's curious that he didn't put them and her phone by her body. Seems like that would be a no brainer - unless he needed to use her phone, needed them for something else or just ran out of time. :confused:

But since he was on a cleaning spree he probably bleached down the keys and phone before LE arrived anyway (esp if she used the keys to scratch him).

[maconrich]

:laugh:

A few days ago I posted this:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2605466&postcount=332

and it was pointed out to me earlier today that some of you might have thought I was somehow referring to Jason Young in that post. And LOLOLOL. OMG NO! :doh:
(snip)
Whew. I feel better. I got a hearty laugh though at what some of you must have thought when I said I "wanted to give J. Young a big hug...have a beer, and ask him questions..." :floorlaugh: :D

[jumpstreet]

"J.A. Young" is a Sr. Police Officer with the Cary Police Dept and he was the one who took the lead in getting the search warrants and probable cause affidavit in the Cooper case.

[...]

For the record, I would never want wife killer Jason Young (let alone any murderer) to be anywhere in my vicinity, let alone near my house or my dog or even mowing my lawn (no matter how much I hate mowing the lawn)!! :eek:


I thought I read that Jason Young was no longer with his previous employer, but it's a crazy mixed up world if he is now a part of the investigation team for the BC case. Wild and crazy! ;)

[jumpstreet]

I thought I read that Jason Young was no longer with his previous employer, but it's a crazy mixed up world if he is now a part of the investigation team for the BC case. Wild and crazy! ;)

Before I get 'jumped' on, yes, I do realize that "detective J.A. Young" and "Jason Young" are 2 different people. Previous post was just a joke. [ :) ]

[chauncey7381]

Jumpstreet----are you kidding!

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?

It's absolutely within the REALM of possibility that he is innocent. There is NO sufficient evidence to support the ongoing hearsay, vicious gossip, and blah blah blah that Brad Cooper killed his wife.

If there was ANY damning evidence at this juncture, he would be behind bars.

She went for a run and never came home according to her husband, and the authorities have not proved other wise.

Until then I remain on the fence and will not convict this man in the court of pubic opinion.

Sure his actions can be interpreted as suspicious if you believe he murdered her.

[jumpstreet]

Jumpstreet----are you kidding!

It's absolutely within the REALM of possibility that he is innocent. There is NO sufficient evidence to support the ongoing hearsay, vicious gossip, and blah blah blah that Brad Cooper killed his wife.

If there was ANY damning evidence at this juncture, he would be behind bars.

She went for a run and never came home according to her husband, and the authorities have not proved other wise.

Until then I remain on the fence and will not convict this man in the court of pubic opinion.

Sure his actions can be interpreted as suspicious if you believe he murdered her.

Thanks for the response chauncey - very good points! [I for one believe at least some of the forensics are likely back (yes, yes, I know... forensic testing can take 6 months or more)... I still think at least some of them are back... and even so, still no arrest... ]

[SleuthyGal]

This has been mentioned a few times on the boards, but in case you hadn't read it, the Wake County DA (Colin Willoughby) will NOT take a case for prosecution UNTIL ALL the evidence is 'in,' meaning all testing done, including any forensics, but not only just forensics. He insists on everything being done, all 'i's' dotted and 't's' crossed. He proceeds very slowly and carefully (unlike Nifong, for instance). There's no statute of limitations for murder so he can wait to bring charges until he's got everything in, done, ready, and every little item on the to-do list is completed. He's known for this. It frustrates many people that he moves at a glacial pace. But as has also been discussed before, the DA only gets ONE SHOT to prosecute a case and this particular DA doesn't ever want to blow that shot; he is not a risk taker by any stretch. BTW, no arrest is going to be made UNTIL the DA's office is ready to proceed.

Now you can believe all the testing is back if you'd like; personally I think some of it is back and some is not since we're coming up on the 60-day mark and the crime lab turnaround is at a MINIMUM 60-days. Remember that putting together a criminal case is not only about forensics. And DNA isn't always found and therefore a murderer is not always tied forensically to his/her victim.

In the Laci Peterson murder case there was nothing in the house forensically that proved murder and there was ONE HAIR in Scott Peterson's boat, wrapped around a pair of pliers (it was Laci's hair). NOTHING else forensically was found in that case and yet Scott Peterson was not only convicted for first degree murder, he was sentenced to death. And COD was never established, nor was TOD, as Laci's body was too decomposed and missing parts, after 4 months in the SF Bay.

Evidence comes in many forms. It takes time to suss out all the different pieces of information and just because there isn't an immediate arrest and prosecution doesn't mean there never will be. If only life were as neatly wrapped up as an episode of CSI.

[RKAB]

ITA on them being a red flag and it's curious that he didn't put them and her phone by her body. Seems like that would be a no brainer - unless he needed to use her phone, needed them for something else or just ran out of time. :confused:

But since he was on a cleaning spree he probably bleached down the keys and phone before LE arrived anyway (esp if she used the keys to scratch him).

He probably knew that she always took her cell phone but I think that one of the reasons why he didn't leave the phone with her body is that many cell phones come with GPS and can easily be tracked. If her one phone was one of those phones, she may have been located even sooner with the GPS. My phone is a relatively inexpensive phone and even it has GPS.

[wirehair]

Just because he said she went running doesn't make it so. I wonder how many people saw her running on a regular basis. He lied about who she was running with. He has been caught in numerous other lies. His behavior that day was out of the norm. Where is that person that he had a tennis date with. I'm sure that they have been contacted. No garage is so full of stuff that someone couldn't have been knocked down by the car. All you need is two or three feet and that car is not as long as a truck. Once he inflicted a minor injury she was at his mercy to inflict more. I wouldn't even want to be his next door neighbor during this time. I'm sure he feels like a caged cat right now.....and that is a dangerous animal. He could pop at any time. If he were innocent, he would be fighting like mad right now to prove it. JMHO

[jmflu]

Not only that, but if he were innocent, he would be looking for her killer, too, appealing to the public, and would have shown up at at least one of his own wife's memorials.

But I guess some people can't put together all the facts for themselves as this board has so meticulously and time-consumingly done for them, and no matter what is learned it will only be "vicious gossip" until LE arrests BC.

[MCDRAW]

He probably knew that she always took her cell phone but I think that one of the reasons why he didn't leave the phone with her body is that many cell phones come with GPS and can easily be tracked. If her one phone was one of those phones, she may have been located even sooner with the GPS. My phone is a relatively inexpensive phone and even it has GPS.


Does the phone have to be turned on for the GPS to work?

[raisincharlie]

I am not summarizing or stating something that LE said in a SW without clarifying that I'm assuming an outcome that wasn't mention specifically. With HT I am stating that Mom actually told us something...we all can read what she told us. You are mixing two things here.

You are right. But I do not agree with your interpretation of the search warrant affidavits nor do I believe LE did not check it out. My point being there has been a whole heck of a lot of summarizing and speculating - each is allowed to do so and how things are interprested are often based on one's experience.

Yes I know what Mom has said, I also know she freely admits it was told to her, not first hand knowledge. I do not doubt her truthfulness nor her reasons just as I don not doubt the truthfulness or reasons of LE.

[raisincharlie]

He probably knew that she always took her cell phone but I think that one of the reasons why he didn't leave the phone with her body is that many cell phones come with GPS and can easily be tracked. If her one phone was one of those phones, she may have been located even sooner with the GPS. My phone is a relatively inexpensive phone and even it has GPS.

This is a good point (kinda scary in a way). But I suspect you may have a very good idea here and one of the things Brad probably understood well was communication devices.

[Roy23]

Jumpstreet----are you kidding!



It's absolutely within the REALM of possibility that he is innocent. There is NO sufficient evidence to support the ongoing hearsay, vicious gossip, and blah blah blah that Brad Cooper killed his wife.

If there was ANY damning evidence at this juncture, he would be behind bars.

She went for a run and never came home according to her husband, and the authorities have not proved other wise.

Until then I remain on the fence and will not convict this man in the court of pubic opinion.

Sure his actions can be interpreted as suspicious if you believe he murdered her.



I actually agree with a whole lot of what you are saying but that doesn't mean he would be behind bars if they had damning evidence. There is not enough evidence that we know of right now and I stand right beside you on the fence. I do think that will change but as of now we only have evidence that was probable cause to get a warrant. Nothing else.

[jmflu]

Sure his actions can be interpreted as suspicious if you believe he murdered her.

We believe he murdered her because his actions can be interpreted as suspicious... not the other way around.

[Roy23]

We believe he murdered her because his actions can be interpreted as suspicious... not the other way around.

He is saying suspicions doesn't confirm guilt. Evidence does.

[raisincharlie]

This has been mentioned a few times on the boards, but in case you hadn't read it, the Wake County DA (Colin Willoughby) will NOT take a case for prosecution UNTIL ALL the evidence is 'in,' meaning all testing done, including any forensics, but not only just forensics. He insists on everything being done, all 'i's' dotted and 't's' crossed. He proceeds very slowly and carefully (unlike Nifong, for instance). There's no statute of limitations for murder so he can wait to bring charges until he's got everything in, done, ready, and every little item on the to-do list is completed. He's known for this. It frustrates many people that he moves at a glacial pace. But as has also been discussed before, the DA only gets ONE SHOT to prosecute a case and this particular DA doesn't ever want to blow that shot; he is not a risk taker by any stretch. BTW, no arrest is going to be made UNTIL the DA's office is ready to proceed.

Now you can believe all the testing is back if you'd like; personally I think some of it is back and some is not since we're coming up on the 60-day mark and the crime lab turnaround is at a MINIMUM 60-days. Remember that putting together a criminal case is not only about forensics. And DNA isn't always found and therefore a murderer is not always tied forensically to his/her victim.

In the Laci Peterson murder case there was nothing in the house forensically that proved murder and there was ONE HAIR in Scott Peterson's boat, wrapped around a pair of pliers (it was Laci's hair). NOTHING else forensically was found in that case and yet Scott Peterson was not only convicted for first degree murder, he was sentenced to death. And COD was never established, nor was TOD, as Laci's body was too decomposed and missing parts, after 4 months in the SF Bay.

Evidence comes in many forms. It takes time to suss out all the different pieces of information and just because there isn't an immediate arrest and prosecution doesn't mean there never will be. If only life were as neatly wrapped up as an episode of CSI.

Good summary SG, just wanted to add that spousal murders are often more difficult to prove to the standard because the forensics and DNA in several situations is to be "expected". This requires additional investigation to verify that what is found should not be "expected" to the same standard. For example is it reasonable to find carpet fibers from the boot of the 325i on Nancy's body if indeed such fibers were found ? Is it reasonable to find Brad's DNA under Nancy's nails if it is indeed found ? Simple things such as this can make or break a case and no DA in their right mind is going to go for an indictment until such questions are answered to a specified standard.

[jmflu]

He is saying suspicions doesn't confirm guilt. Evidence does.


Correct, and I agree. But our suspicions are based on evidence. Mounds and mounds of it.

[raisincharlie]

Correct, and I agree. But our suspicions are based on evidence. Mounds and mounds of it.

I don't think I have seen any real evidence, lots of hints at evidence, but I really don't think I have seen any other than that Nancy was found and her death was ruled a homicide. Not being argumentative, just honest.

[jumpstreet]

I don't think I have seen any real evidence, lots of hints at evidence, but I really don't think I have seen any other than that Nancy was found and her death was ruled a homicide. Not being argumentative, just honest.

RC... I have newfound respect for you (not that I didn't already have plenty) :)

[raisincharlie]

RC, about the keys. Did Garry Rentz specify how he taught Nancy to hold her keys? When I read that, I thought about the way I'd been taught: Keys are held with the keyring in your palm and each key poking out between your fingers, hand closed. (Like a spiked fist.)

If NC held her keys like that, I don't see the keys making the scratches. I was thinking more along the lines of BC being over NC -- choking? hitting? -- (facing each other) and her getting her arm around the back of his neck. Explains the scratches being light and the possible fingernail.

Daphne this question stayed in my mind for a while for some reason. Having slept on it, it dawned on me this morning why. Of course the statement in the Ex Parte comes to mind - that Nancy never went running. Since Mr. Rentz described to LE what he taught Nancy, I have to wonder if he also told LE what Nancy may have said to him to prompt him to teach her this defensive mechanism. Could be nothing, but am wondering if there is more reason for it to have been brought up in the sw affidavit than is being stated in the affidavit, that being a justification as to why she always carried her keys. Seems to me someone forgeting their keys isn't exactly a big deal. Pretty much a huge coincidence that she happened to forget them on the day she disappears however. Dunno, just studying and thanks for the thought :)

[raisincharlie]

RC... I have newfound respect for you (not that I didn't already have plenty) :)

Honesty only goes so far - I still think he murdered his wife and threw her out like the garbage.

[SleuthyGal]

I don't think I have seen any real evidence, lots of hints at evidence, but I really don't think I have seen any other than that Nancy was found and her death was ruled a homicide. Not being argumentative, just honest.

I mostly agree, though I would include the following as items of evidence:

- his statements and contradictions of his own statements (both by him and by others) since that is evidence that can/will be used in a trial.

- The marks observed on the back of his neck.

- His timeline and variations of that, including the fact that he has said he was 'up' at 4am.

[jumpstreet]

- His timeline and variations of that, including the fact that he has said he was 'up' at 4am.

It's a good point regarding the timelines. As I posted before, I'm really puzzled on why the timeline in his custody affidavit didn't align more closely (and corroborate) many of the things in the timeline that LE had put in their warrant.

If I'm guilty, that would seem a solid opportunity to document a consistent story. It therefore strikes me as weird/odd that they don't align more precisely.

Here's a question: Surely the oldest daughter was asked (if not by LE, then by family, and maybe also by LE) what she recalls from the morning of. If she has no recollection of seeing and/or speaking with mommy on the morning of the 12th - to me, that would be a significant 'smoking gun'.
[ Presumably by now, LE (and/or the family) would at least have the datapoint of what (if anything) the oldest child recalls of mommy on the morning of the 12th ]

Either way, it's pretty big datapoint: If the oldest speaks to seeing mommy at any point after 4am, that's very good to know. If the oldest speaks to not seeing mommy at all on that morning (or only seeing her "sleeping"), that's pretty huge too.

Do we have any reports (even if secondhand), of the oldest child saying anything about mommy on the morning of the 12th?

[raisincharlie]

I mostly agree, though I would include the following as items of evidence:

- his statements and contradictions of his own statements (both by him and by others) since that is evidence that can/will be used in a trial.

- The marks observed on the back of his neck.

- His timeline and variations of that, including the fact that he has said he was 'up' at 4am.

I agree his statements/contradictions and statements by others will be brought into a trial if and when there is one but other than marital issues am not sure it prove he murdered nancy, motive can possiblely be assigned but that is about all.

The marks on his neck - right now I don't see anything that proves Nancy inflicted those, the detective couldn't seem to determine the cause either and Brd said nothing, so for now I don't know that this is proof of a fight or a murder.

To me the fact that he admitted to being up at 4am means little at this point. For me however, this admission does cast some doubt about a 420 trip to HT. Insanity to admit this if he can be seen on a video at HT at 420 am. JMO, it does suggest to me that if he murdered his wife it was after 4 am.

[Daphne69]

Daphne this question stayed in my mind for a while for some reason. Having slept on it, it dawned on me this morning why. Of course the statement in the Ex Parte comes to mind - that Nancy never went running. Since Mr. Rentz described to LE what he taught Nancy, I have to wonder if he also told LE what Nancy may have said to him to prompt him to teach her this defensive mechanism. Could be nothing, but am wondering if there is more reason for it to have been brought up in the sw affidavit than is being stated in the affidavit, that being a justification as to why she always carried her keys. Seems to me someone forgeting their keys isn't exactly a big deal. Pretty much a huge coincidence that she happened to forget them on the day she disappears however. Dunno, just studying and thanks for the thought :)

Hmmm. Something to think about. It does seem odd that Mr. Rentz would mention it unless it is simply to disprove Brad's story that she went running. (Rentz: "Something's wrong. She wouldn't go running without her keys. I taught her how to use them for self-defense and she always takes them.")

Maybe NC had her house keys when she walked in Friday night/Sat morning and never sat them down?

[raisincharlie]

Hmmm. Something to think about. It does seem odd that Mr. Rentz would mention it unless it is simply to disprove Brad's story that she went running. (Rentz: "Something's wrong. She wouldn't go running without her keys. I taught her how to use them for self-defense and she always takes them.")

Maybe NC had her house keys when she walked in Friday night/Sat morning and never sat them down?

According to her friends, she slept with her keys on her person, so if true, she would not have put them anywhere, especially near the front door since her goal was to keep Brad out of the X5.

[Daphne69]

To me the fact that he admitted to being up at 4am means little at this point. For me however, this admission does cast some doubt about a 420 trip to HT. Insanity to admit this if he can be seen on a video at HT at 420 am. JMO, it does suggest to me that if he murdered his wife it was after 4 am.

I'm not following you here. Doesn't admitting he was up at 4 am seem like some half-hearted (but not very smart) attempt to explian being seen around 4 am, trip to HT included? I admit he should've said he had to go the store for something for Katie then.

Also, I don't get how this would imply he murdered her (if he did :winko:) after 4 am. It's just his word that NC was also awake then. Nobody can verify except Katie, who is pre-verbal according to affidavits.

[raisincharlie]

I'm not following you here. Doesn't admitting he was up at 4 am seem like some half-hearted (but not very smart) attempt to explian being seen around 4 am, trip to HT included? I admit he should've said he had to go the store for something for Katie then.

Also, I don't get how this would imply he murdered her (if he did :winko:) after 4 am. It's just his word that NC was also awake then. Nobody can verify except Katie, who is pre-verbal according to affidavits.

Just my thought on it - sorry to confuse. To me admitting he was up at 4 am gives a reason for why lights might have been on in the house. But I have a real problem thinking this guy is dumb enough to tell LE he went to the store twice - and in an affidavit for custody defines the time as between 6 and 7 am at the HT where it is being claimed he supposedly went at 420 am. This is based on all the conversations here about the surviellance - one can watch themselves enter the store according to locals. It does not make sense to me.

There also may be some truth to him being up at 4 with Katie, and it is as possible a fight started at this time as it is that a fight started at midnight when Nancy came home.

[jumpstreet]

JBut I have a real problem thinking this guy is dumb enough to tell LE he went to the store twice - and in an affidavit for custody defines the time as between 6 and 7 am at the HT where it is being claimed he supposedly went at 420 am. This is based on all the conversations here about the surviellance - one can watch themselves enter the store according to locals. It does not make sense to me.


This is along the same lines as a general sticking point with me also: the apparent inconsistency between the timeline/noteworthy-events he knew LE to have, and the timeline/noteworthy-events he subsequently documented in the custody affidavit.

If guilty, why not do a better job of aligning those things, ensuring there were no apparent inconsistencies.

[SleuthyGal]

Seemingly 'smart' guys trip themselves up all the time....he could be subconsciously sabotaging himself for committing murder...or he could think that no one's keeping really close track of every thing he says. Or he is used to lying and thinks people will believe whatever he tells them because he's not used to being questioned/analyzed. Hard to say WHY, but he did and is tripping himself up.

I personally believe the murder happened around 1am and no later than 2am. I don't see how he accomplished a murder around 4am, getting her into the car, dumping her at the site AND getting to HT where he is allegedly seen buying laundry detergent at 4:20am. That doesn't sound right to me and I believe the 4:20am HT visit. IMHO, of course.

[raisincharlie]

This is along the same lines as a general sticking point with me also: the apparent inconsistency between the timeline/noteworthy-events he knew LE to have, and the timeline/noteworthy-events he subsequently documented in the custody affidavit.

If guilty, why not do a better job of aligning those things, ensuring there were no apparent inconsistencies.

Some are assuming there are inconsistencies - the question is are there really ? He tells LE he is up at 4am, he admits to making two trips to the store, he also admits to taking Katie to his office area after these two trips, he also says Nancy was looking for a certain shirt so she can go running, he also admits he hears the door open and close and assumes Nancy left. Other than the 4am time - there are no times assigned in the sw affidavit as to when these events occurred. I don't see how an inconsistency exists without times being assigned to these events.

The only real inconsistencies we have truly heard is on FOX he says Nancy left at 6:30 to 7 - the only other times are listed in his affidavit for custody which was made after he had time to go through receipts to verify times. I don't see where the inconsistencies are coming from myself.

[SleuthyGal]

He tells police he was cleaning from 9am to 1pm

He says in his affidavit that at 12:30pm he goes looking for Nancy (he also told JA in a phone call he was doing this too).

In his affidavit he mentions a planned tennis game at 9:30, with postponement, then cancellation. In his statement to police he says nothing about plans to play tennis and keeps with the cleaning from 9am to 1pm.

Please refer to my post on the inconsistencies thread for additional timeline inconsistencies.

[raisincharlie]

Seemingly 'smart' guys trip themselves up all the time....he could be subconsciously sabotaging himself for committing murder...or he could think that no one's keeping really close track of every thing he says. Or he is used to lying and thinks people will believe whatever he tells them because he's not used to being questioned/analyzed. Hard to say WHY, but he did and is tripping himself up.

I personally believe the murder happened around 1am and no later than 2am. I don't see how he accomplished a murder around 4am, getting her into the car, dumping her at the site AND getting to HT where he is allegedly seen buying laundry detergent at 4:20am. That doesn't sound right to me and I believe the 4:20am HT visit. IMHO, of course.

I respect that opinion but let me ask you - if he murdered her at 2 am how did he manage getting her into the car, taking her body to the disposal site and getting to HT by 420 am ? Is this any different than murdering her at 4 am, getting her into the car, taking her to the disposal site and getting to HT by 620 am ?

[jumpstreet]

Some are assuming there are inconsistencies - the question is are there really ?

Yeah, good point, perhaps there are no hard inconsistencies between the two threads/timelines.

Certainly though, some things are emphasized more in one and not the other. In the custody affidavit timeline (which presumably was an attempt to respond to the various implications (public and otherwise) occurring at that time), while at the same time, in general trying to substantiate he is a worthy father; there is no mention of getting up at 4am to take care of one of the girls (iirc). Also, there is no mention of speaking hours cleaning while waiting for NC to return. He mentions canceling the tennis plans, but doesn't mention cleaning in the meantime.

Maybe that's no big deal, but if I were guilty, and I knew that LE already had the view of those key happenings, I would make a point to ensure that there was better alignment, with similar events noted. The 2 timelines, if not inconsistent, at the least seem somewhat disjoint to me. It's curious.

[raisincharlie]

He tells police he was cleaning from 9am to 1pm

He says in his affidavit that at 12:30pm he goes looking for Nancy (he also told JA in a phone call he was doing this too).

In his affidavit he mentions a planned tennis game at 9:30, with postponement, then cancellation. In his statement to police he says nothing about plans to play tennis and keeps with the cleaning from 9am to 1pm.

Please refer to my post on the inconsistencies thread for additional timeline inconsistencies.

I don't think we know everything he told LE - I doubt everything is in the sw affidavit.

[SleuthyGal]

I respect that opinion but let me ask you - if he murdered her at 2 am how did he manage getting her into the car, taking her body to the disposal site and getting to HT by 420 am ? Is this any different than murdering her at 4 am, getting her into the car, taking her to the disposal site and getting to HT by 620 am ?

My theory is predicated on that 4:20am HT visit being REAL (I know, it has not been verified by any official, but I do believe it and am basing my assumptions from that).

If there really was no HT visit at 4:20am then yes, he very well could have dumped her at 6am. I think it comes down to if you give any credence to a 4:20am HT visit to purchase laundry detergent (or not). I understand the need to have official confirmation from a LE type. Right now I believe it.

[SleuthyGal]

I don't think we know everything he told LE - I doubt everything is in the sw affidavit.

The cleaning vs. looking for Nancy is in writing, so that is a (confirmed) inconsistency.

Why would the detective write that Brad was cleaning from 9am to 1pm and fail to mention a pertinent fact about tennis plans at 9:30am if Brad told them? It wasn't in the SW affidavit because, I believe, Brad didn't say anything to the cops about those tennis plans. And if you notice, he also doesn't say anything in his custody affidavit about his cleaning binge between 9am - 1pm (but he does mention tennis plans for 9:30am, as well as being out looking for Nancy around 12:30pm when she failed to return home)

[raisincharlie]

My theory is predicated on that 4:20am HT visit being REAL (I know, it has not been verified by any official, but I do believe it and am basing my assumptions from that).

If there really was no HT visit at 4:20am then yes, he very well could have dumped her at 6am. I think it comes down to if you give any credence to a 4:20am HT visit to purchase laundry detergent (or not). I understand the need to have official confirmation from a LE type. Right now I believe it.

This is where we have an inconsistency :)

According to your opinion you think he went to the store at 420 to get detergent - obviously to clean up with. Where this doesn't work for me is if he bought detergent at 420 why did he go to the store at 620 to buy milk only to come home and realize there was no detergent and go back to the store to purchase more. Seems to me he would have known beyond a shadow of a doubt if he bought detergent at 420 he also would have known at 620 on the first trip he reports making if he needed more detergent but he didn't - he had to go a second time to buy detergent.

This whole two trips between 6 and 7 is a mask for something, most likely when he dumped her body and the supposed phone call was a mask to show she was alive while he was away. But if he was frantically cleaning after 4 am he would have known he need more detergent on his first trip - not the second IMO. We just see things differently.