PDA

View Full Version : Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #25


Pages : [1] 2 3

christine2448
09-09-2008, 09:56 AM
Please continue GENERAL discussions here. Look around Nancy has her own forum (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=165), there are several threads started on specific topics to try and stay organized.


Links to previous and similar threads can be found toward the bottom of the page.


Newbies.....

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/christine2448/WELCOMETOWSBLUE.gif

I am sad such a tragedy is bringing us all together.

I advise everyone to read the RULES of WS, Long (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66869)and Short Version (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66872).

fran
09-09-2008, 10:09 AM
Thank you so much christine!

:blowkiss:
fran

fran
09-09-2008, 10:18 AM
For any of you locals, see my post on the OT thread.

Thanks,
fran

d99gr81
09-09-2008, 04:04 PM
AH! My work had this site blocked for the last couple weeks so I could not get on... Not sure why its working now but I am not complaining. Anyone have any new info on this case?

reddress58
09-09-2008, 04:25 PM
AH! My work had this site blocked for the last couple weeks so I could not get on... Not sure why its working now but I am not complaining. Anyone have any new info on this case?
Why did they block it? And then why did they unblock it? Just curious. Welcome back. Not too much going on. We've been going over the inventory in the SW's and trying to make sense of what LE may know by the type of items seized. The SW's are posted on the documents thread if you haven't seen them.

It's also been debated (somewhat heated I may add) whether any of us would convict Brad at this time with the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, known at this point. Feel free to weigh in.

bluenoser
09-10-2008, 11:50 AM
Hi, I've been trying to read here & there to see what I have missed over the last couple of weeks as I don't get on nearly as often as I did when this case first started, but in my reading earlier today, I saw something mentioned about 'what Nancy said at a BBQ or party that would have embarassed Brad'. I'm not sure if this is something I've already read, my memory is quite bad so it's possible that I did. Can someone point to me where I would find more about what was said? (Sorry to interrupt what everyone else is currently discussing.)

ncnative
09-10-2008, 12:22 PM
Try the locked thread before this one (thread # 24), post #89 for starters. It's by Momto3kids. She quotes various parts of the affidavits. The affidavits can be found on the Legal Documents section on the "index" page of the Nancy Cooper case.

Some of what you remember may be speculations from what some of the Websleuthers have put out here, too. It's all running together. I remember someone saying that Nancy "...talked back..." to Brad at a social gathering after he "...slapped her leg..." because he thought she should deal with Katie and Bella's "...misbehaving..." at the gathering. The "talked back" is, I think, chosen words from one of the Websleuthers, but the "misbehaving" and leg slapping is from one of the affidavits where someone's husband said that. (Timothy Simmons affidavit, look on the Legal Documents section, Fran's #7 posted WRAL's legal documents of affidavits). Timothy's mentioned the leg slapping incident at a Dec. 2007 party, so that was NOT the night before she died, obviously).

ncnative
09-10-2008, 12:26 PM
Bluenoser, by "index" page, go to the top of this page where your name is in the right uppermost corner saying "welcome bluenoser". Just to the left of that, at the very top of this page it will say Nancy Cooper. Click on that and it will take you to the page that I call the "index" page where you can look for everything.

fran
09-10-2008, 12:57 PM
Hi Bluenoser! :)

On post #12 of the 'legal documents' thread, page 43, #17, Diana Duncan talks about an incident that night of the bbq.

Brad didn't understand what Katie wanted because she couldn't talk yet. Nancy was frustrated and told Brad he needed to "pay more attention to the signals."

Welcome to Websleuths, btw.

fran

Topsail Girl
09-10-2008, 01:33 PM
Slightly off topic but did anyone else notice the name of the investigating officer in the case of Maria Teresa Herrera-Diaz that lived right around the corner from Nancy? Officer J.A. Young again...poor man!!! :(


http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/09/10/3521025/23975-search_warrant_dunhagan.pdf

I also noticed the similarities listed under Description of Items to be Seized between Nancy's and Maria's Warrants.

Daphne69
09-10-2008, 01:52 PM
On post #12 of the 'legal documents' thread, page 43, #17, Diana Duncan talks about an incident that night of the bbq.

Brad didn't understand what Katie wanted because she couldn't talk yet. Nancy was frustrated and told Brad he needed to "pay more attention to the signals."



If the situation weren't so sad, I would've laughed when I read that in the affidavits. As a mother of a 2 year-old, I am always interpreting what she wants -- and she can talk a blue streak (just not so clearly)!

Hi from me too, Bluenoser!

reddress58
09-10-2008, 07:00 PM
New scoop:

http://cary.mync.com/site/cary/news/story/8696/attorneys-trying-to-divide-custody-issues

"Brad Cooper's lawyers filed a pair of motions Wednesday."

"A Motion to Bifurcate Hearing is asking that the entire issue be divided in two (Bifurcate means "to cause to divide into two branches or parts" according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

"Additionally, attorneys filed a Motion In Limine, which is asking that certain pieces of evidence not be introduced relating to one of those parts until the court has ruled on the other.

According to the motions, the defense is asking the judge to prevent "the Plaintiffs from putting on any evidence concerning the best interests of the minor child until the court has heard and ruled upon the fitness of the defendant to care for his minor children or whether he has acted inconsistent with his parental rights."

The motions say that the well being of the children is a valid argument between two parents, but because this case pits a father against grandparents, the father would have to be deemed "unfit" for that to have any bearing.

Basically, the defense is saying that plaintiffs have not provided "statutory authority" warranting anything more than the original emergency custody order - and therefore, they should only be allowed to submit evidence that the girls would be in "a substantial risk to bodily injury" or abduction "for the purpose of evading jurisdiction."

Attorneys for Brad Cooper contend that he and the two girls are legally an "intact family" the burden is on Nancy Cooper's family, since no custody order has been filed; the two sides came to an out-of-court agreement once the emergency custody order expired)."

fran
09-10-2008, 07:13 PM
reddress58!

LOL, this is completely over my head. :crazy:

Do you understand?

:)
fran

SleuthyGal
09-10-2008, 07:53 PM
Thanks for posting that, Reddress!

I don't understand that last part. How are the best interests of the children NOT germaine to the determination of custody? And why shouldn't the plaintiffs be allowed to present their information (first)? Or are they trying to separate the murder case from the issue of custody?

It's like they want the court to determine that Brad is a great father...(except for that murdering the kids' mother part...oops). But let's all forget about THAT.

In the O.J. case the grandparents had temporary custody during the entire length of the criminal trial (over a year+). Then custody was fought in the courts and it happened to be at the same time as the civil trial...a trial which he eventually lost, to the tune of $33+ million. But he got his kids back. His daughter is forever screwed up (she's 24 now) and was 9 at the time of the murder.

reddress58
09-10-2008, 08:05 PM
I didn't post the whole story; just the gist of it. You'll have to read the whole thing to get a better understanding...then you can explain it to Fran & me. :-)

ETA: I just added the rest of the article.

SleuthyGal
09-10-2008, 08:51 PM
LOL

Reading....reading again. :scratcheshead:

reddress58
09-10-2008, 09:03 PM
LOL

Reading....reading again. :scratcheshead:
I'm stumped, too. Wish some of our legal gurus would sign on.

Skittles
09-10-2008, 09:11 PM
I know there was an episode of "Law and Order" that involved bifurcation. I don't suppose that helps, though.

SleuthyGal
09-10-2008, 09:25 PM
I understand the concept, esp. as it applies to divorce (they separate out figuring out the money part from the actual getting divorced/severing the marriage part).

But in this particular case I'm not sure how it's supposed to play.

SleuthyGal
09-10-2008, 09:27 PM
In my mind, if BC murdered NC then that makes him an unfit parent to raise the kids. Because murdering the mother is never in 'the best interests of the children,' despite also being a felony. I don't know if the law takes any of that into account though.

Custody would be determined ahead of any criminal case, with the pace that the DA moves. And given this particular DA, if this isn't a 'slam dunk' case then he might never bring charges.

I wish the Modesto DA that prosecuted Peterson was the one serving this jurisdiction!

reddress58
09-10-2008, 09:53 PM
I think somehow it's a way around Brad having to be cross examined about the contents of his affidavit. To me, it is his counsel back-pedaling after stupidly allowing him to include such damning statments to begin with. They want the judge to base his decision on what kind of parent he was BEFORE NC's death. The grandparents are not allowed to give any evidence of what may have happened afterwards. Just my guess.

mahmoo
09-10-2008, 09:56 PM
Hi Ya'll :wave:.....I'm still lurking in the shadows lol.

Something I wonder with the custody issue......does BC "really" want the girls or his attorney pushing the issue and telling him he's "got" to do that :confused:......don't like saying that but.....

jumpstreet
09-10-2008, 10:52 PM
I'm stumped, too. Wish some of our legal gurus would sign on.

Well, I'm no legal guru (or, at least I don't play one on TV)... but my take on it is this:

Legally, the first burden of the plaintiffs is to establish/demonstrate that BC is an unfit father. Until that's established, it's pointless to talk about where the girls might have a "better" home.

Until the plaintiffs can demonstrate to the court, that BC is an unfit father, then the girls are "by definition" best served by being with their father (in the eyes of the court).

In other words, the defense doesn't want the waters to be muddied by testimony like "in Canada the girls would have a better life, a more stable life, etc" discussed (yet). These things are irrelevant unless it is first established BC is "unfit".

Another way to look at it (very hypothetical) Let's say someone wanted to come in and take your kids, let's say they were really wealthy, and could provide for them a "better" home, meet all their needs, and shower them with love. Even if it that were true that the (hypothetical) plaintiffs in this example could demonstrate that they could provide a "better" home than you... it's pointless legally, unless it's been established that you are unfit. [ Again, this is an oversimplified example, but kinda explains the rationale of the law ]

In the BC case, the defense is trying to limit the scope to "first things first". This way they can focus their defense. If the plaintiffs have evidence that BC is unfit father, then it's a non-issue. If they don't, then it will be a short day in court. [ Obviously the plaintiffs push/request for a psycho exam is along the lines of trying to establish "fitness" as a parent ]

momto3kids
09-10-2008, 10:59 PM
My take on this is the 1st part has to pertain to the plaintiff's proving BC is unfit 1st and foremost before the 2nd part to accusations or opinions can be heard.

1st part is going to be facts. This will force the plaintiffs to show the courts BC has had something like.....SS called previously on him for the children, abusive to them, leaving them home for hours with no adult supervision, no job to support them, alcoholic, sells drugs from home, unlocked weapons, mentally unstable on antidepressants, etc. Just not fit to care for his children or have them in his care.
The one thing they can do is show he was in possession of the Passports. But yet they all put in their affidavits he took the passports to keep NC here and so he was not actually the flight risk.:rolleyes:

2nd part is going to be opinions. The courts will hear evidence to the best interests of the girls. This would possibly allow the accusations of $ for food, anger issues, etc.

momto3kids
09-10-2008, 11:06 PM
Well, I'm no legal guru (or, at least I don't play one on TV)... but my take on it is this:

Legally, the first burden of the plaintiffs is to establish/demonstrate that BC is an unfit father. Until that's established, it's pointless to talk about where the girls might have a "better" home.

Until the plaintiffs can demonstrate to the court, that BC is an unfit father, then the girls are "by definition" best served by being with their father (in the eyes of the court).

In other words, the defense doesn't want the waters to be muddied by testimony like "in Canada the girls would have a better life, a more stable life, etc" discussed (yet). These things are irrelevant unless it is first established BC is "unfit".

Another way to look at it (very hypothetical) Let's say someone wanted to come in and take your kids, let's say they were really wealthy, and could provide for them a "better" home, meet all their needs, and shower them with love. Even if it that were true that the (hypothetical) plaintiffs in this example could demonstrate that they could provide a "better" home than you... it's pointless legally, unless it's been established that you are unfit. [ Again, this is an oversimplified example, but kinda explains the rationale of the law ]

In the BC case, the defense is trying to limit the scope to "first things first". This way they can focus their defense. If the plaintiffs have evidence that BC is unfit father, then it's a non-issue. If they don't, then it will be a short day in court. [ Obviously the plaintiffs push/request for a psycho exam is along the lines of trying to establish "fitness" as a parent ]

JS...you and I are saying just about the same thing.

What BC attorney's are doing is forcing the CPD to name their suspect before this hearing in a non direct way. This is IMO the one thing the court will definetely have to look at 1st and foremost if he is named. This will then be a fact and not an opinion if he gets named.

Oct 13 is 90 days since NC was murdered and I wonder if the judge did this knowing the forensic's would be back and give the CPD time to put their case together and get his sorry butt.

reddress58
09-10-2008, 11:19 PM
Jump & Mom, thank you BOTH for clarification. I obviously have a lot to learn about the law.

SleuthyGal
09-10-2008, 11:20 PM
Oct 13 is 90 days since NC was murdered and I wonder if the judge did this knowing the forensic's would be back and give the CPD time to put their case together and get his sorry butt.

90 days sounds like enough time to me, but then you look at a case like the M.Y. case that has dragged on since Nov '06 and you wonder if anything can happen in a timely manner. I bet the CPD will have their part mostly wrapped-up, but being allowed to call him a "POI" if the DA doesn't give the thumbs up? I don't know. "POS" definitely.

reddress58
09-10-2008, 11:22 PM
Hi Ya'll :wave:.....I'm still lurking in the shadows lol.

Something I wonder with the custody issue......does BC "really" want the girls or his attorney pushing the issue and telling him he's "got" to do that :confused:......don't like saying that but.....
Oh, I think he really wants them. He just didn't want Nancy. If he wins this case, all his dreams (and plans) come true. Please, I pray to whatever greater powers that be, let the arrest take place before that hearing!

SleuthyGal
09-10-2008, 11:27 PM
Thanks for the explanation on how the bifurcated process works.

BC was mostly an absent father and I don't know if that can be construed as an 'unfit' parent. The fact is he was working more than 40 hrs a week + pursuing his MBA + training for an Ironman and that covered a significant portion of the kids' lives. How much time, realistically, could he have spent with those kids given the fact there are still only 24 hrs in a day?

In his affidavit he talks about the kids having their friends at their school and in the community. But let's be serious: who is going to want to deal with HIM in allowing their kids to socialize? Most of the kids' friends were Nancy's friends. They all believe he murdered Nancy. What existing NC friend is going to allow their precious kids to be around HIM? Who is going to call him to coordinate play dates for the girls? The kids' social structure has also been fractured as a result.

And I agree with Mahmoo on the point of wanting the kids really & truly. Deep down I think he'd probably prefer to be a single/unencumbered bon vivant now that he finally got rid of Nancy. Of course he'll never admit that, but this is a man who enjoyed a traditional homelife where the wife did the caretaking of hearth, home and kids and he got to beat his manly chest, earn the $$$ and control the little kingdom. As a single father he won't have this dream realized until he finds wifey #2 to marry/control/raise the kids or an understanding girlfriend who will take on that role. Raising kids is hard, and I don't think he has the patience for it fulltime, and certainly not the ability to raise them on his own without female assistance. And, from an emotional standpoint I highly doubt he can understand or have the empathy of the level of ongoing grief his daughters will experience throughout their lives. They will NEVER get over this...not ever. When those girls grow up and are old enough to do some 'research' on their own, they will learn the facts and come to hate what their father did to their mother and them.

IMHO.

momto3kids
09-10-2008, 11:30 PM
Oh, I think he really wants them. He just didn't want Nancy. If he wins this case, all his dreams (and plans) come true. Please, I pray to whatever greater powers that be, let the arrest take place before that hearing!
The saddest part of this entire thing is if he wins them the Rentz's will never see them again. BC will see to it, especially since they have taken the girls for this period of time!

CPD has got to step it up like I am sure they are! But MR. pussypants DA has to allow this action to take place, step back and get a friggin back bone. He is becoming a thorn in my side with all these Wake County cases piling up.

momto3kids
09-10-2008, 11:33 PM
Thanks for the explanation on how the bifurcated process works.

BC was mostly an absent father and I don't know if that can be constituted as an 'unfit' parent. The fact is he was working more than 40 hrs a week + pursuing his MBA + training for an Ironman and that covered a significant portion of the kids' lives. How much time, realistically, could he have spent with those kids given the fact there are still only 24 hrs in a day?

And I agree with Mahmoo on the point of wanting the kids really & truly. Deep down I think he'd probably prefer to be a single/unencumbered bon vivant now that he finally got rid of Nancy. Of course he'll never admit that, but this is a man who wants a traditional homelife where the wife does all the caretaking of hearth, home and kids and he gets to beat his manly chest and earn the $$$ and control his little kingdom. As a single father he won't have this little dream realized until he finds wifey #2 to marry/control/raise the kids or an understanding girlfriend who will take on that role. Raising kids is hard and I don't think he has the patience for it and certainly not the ability to raise them on his own without female assistance.

IMHO.

But you forget his bf SH can show him to to do it all!:clap:

Speaking of Mr.H...saw the man the other day. He is not as tall as I expected, but was outdoors playing frisby with one of his sons. He is a hands on dad I have to admit.

SleuthyGal
09-10-2008, 11:59 PM
But you forget his bf SH can show him to to do it all!:clap:

Speaking of Mr.H...saw the man the other day. He is not as tall as I expected, but was outdoors playing frisby with one of his sons. He is a hands on dad I have to admit.

He can learn a thing or two from Mr. H and how to put one's kids first, if he'll pay attention. But don't forget, the H kids still have their mother. As awful a spouse as she was, at least his kids don't have that loss to contend with. I suspect SH is much more in-tune with the needs of his kids than BC is with his. And regardless, daughters have a special/unique bond with their moms that no father can imitate or supply and no other female can have with them. They are changed forever. IMHO.

mahmoo
09-11-2008, 12:21 AM
No matter how this ends......the little girls lose.

fran
09-11-2008, 12:27 AM
No matter how this ends......the little girls lose.

Now that I can understand and agree with!

JMHO
fran

PS....Oh, and thanks to all who explained reddress58's post that started this discussion....fran

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 12:52 AM
AH! My work had this site blocked for the last couple weeks so I could not get on... Not sure why its working now but I am not complaining. Anyone have any new info on this case?

My browser somehow missed this post from yesterday. Welcome back d99gr81! Glad your company's firewall let this site through.

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 12:55 AM
Slightly off topic but did anyone else notice the name of the investigating officer in the case of Maria Teresa Herrera-Diaz that lived right around the corner from Nancy? Officer J.A. Young again...poor man!!! :(

No! Hadn't noticed that as I have not yet read any of the Herrera-Diaz info yet. Poor Officer Young. He's having a busy summer full of murder, mayhem, and probably unending paperwork. It's gotta wear one's emotions down I would think.

Anderson
09-11-2008, 01:10 AM
The saddest part of this entire thing is if he wins them the Rentz's will never see them again. BC will see to it, especially since they have taken the girls for this period of time!

CPD has got to step it up like I am sure they are! But MR. pussypants DA has to allow this action to take place, step back and get a friggin back bone. He is becoming a thorn in my side with all these Wake County cases piling up.

Do we know if BC will have to go through with the psychiatric examination that NC's parents have asked for? I hope so. I don't know what would be found, but, it sounds like that is an opportunity to demonstrate that he would not be a suitable caretaker for the children. IF he did do this, and many of us believe that he is looking guilty, then hopefully an exam like that would reveal his violent tendencies.

Even if he does want the children, I do think that part of the reason that this has been filed is related to his public image, his character, possibly in anticipation of being charged with the murder. It would not look good for him in a murder trial, if he had never done anything to try to get the children back. I am actually surprised that this didn't happen sooner. I wonder if this is a response to recent events, which we know nothing about. LE had said that they were making progress.

Just a clarification -- I am not talking about a "guilty verdict", which does not make sense to discuss until there have been more developments. Even then a guilty verdict will depend on what shape the trial takes.

Just some thoughts.

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 01:17 AM
Do we know if BC will have to go through with the psychiatric examination that NC's parents have asked for? I hope so. I don't know what would be found, but, it sounds like that is an opportunity to demonstrate that he would not be a suitable caretaker for the children. IF he did do this, and many of us believe that he is looking guilty, then hopefully an exam like that would reveal his violent tendencies.

Even if he does want the children, I do think that part of the reason that this has been filed is related to his public image, his character, possibly in anticipation of being charged with the murder. It would not look good for him in a murder trial, if he had never done anything to try to get the children back. I am actually surprised that this didn't happen sooner. I wonder if this is a response to recent events, which we know nothing about. LE had said that they were making progress.

Just a clarification -- I am not talking about a "guilty verdict", which does not make sense to discuss until there have been more developments. Even then a guilty verdict will depend on what shape the trial takes.

Just some thoughts.

Hi Anderson! I agree with your points. No we don't yet know if he will be required to partake of a psych evaluation. I hope so, but I don't know how the laws work or what the judge will decide. It certainly seems warranted since there was a murder, there was deep and openly hostile martial discord in the household, and there were allegations of behaviors that would lead one to think the children's well-being could be compromised. And don't forget Interact was subpoenaed back in July; there may be something there we are not aware of at this point--something beyond their providing expert commentary.

I also agree with your opinion that this move has some PR motive behind it. Image. Hmmmm....

Anderson
09-11-2008, 01:22 AM
Hi Anderson! I agree with your points. No we don't yet know if he will be required to partake of a psych evaluation. I hope so, but I don't know how the laws work or what the judge will decide. It certainly seems warranted since there was a murder, there was deep and openly hostile martial discord in the household, and there were allegations of behaviors that would lead one to think the children's well-being could be compromised. And don't forget Interact was subpoenaed back in July; there may be something there we are not aware of at this point--something beyond their providing expert commentary.

I also agree with your opinion that this move has some PR motive behind it. Image. Hmmmm....

I guess we just have to wait and see . . .

ncnative
09-11-2008, 02:28 AM
Haaaaaa!!!! Momto3Kids calling the DA "Mr.Pussypants"!!! :thumb::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:You made my day.

The Herrera-Diaz murder is right down the road from here where Nancy's/my house is. Dang. And the Herrera-Diaz murder IS in Heather Metour's neighborhood. It's getting too tight around here. You'd think people would just find something else to do besides murder their wives. I mean, can't they figure out that they'll be caught and go to prison? Duh:bang: Maybe they see OJ, Jason Young and Brad Cooper and think, hey, I'll get off and get on with my life.

So now we have Nancy Cooper, Jenna Nielson, Michelle Young and the Herrera-Diaz murders right here in a little circle, all unsolved. What next? I'm going to make sure my husband is reeeeally happy, just in case. :shakehead:

ncnative
09-11-2008, 02:36 AM
Another choice Brad could make is for his mommy to raise the girls, god forbid.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 07:23 AM
Do we know if BC will have to go through with the psychiatric examination that NC's parents have asked for?

IIRC, the hearing on that is set for Sep 25th (or somewhere around this time). This is when the plaintiffs will try to make their case before the judge as to the basis for requesting the exam. The defense (I don't know), may be there to argue a lack-of-basis (assuming they don't agree with the need). Then, the judge will decide.

If the judge agrees with the plaintiff's (and the exam is ordered), some have speculated that it might drive a continuance of the next custody hearing (in October), as the exam results may not yet be completed.

I guess we'll see (and of course all bets are off if "something else" happens between now and then...)

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 08:06 AM
Haaaaaa!!!! Momto3Kids calling the DA "Mr.Pussypants"!!! :thumb::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:You made my day.

I mean, can't they figure out that they'll be caught and go to prison? Nope! Not if they live in Wake County by the rate this is currently going.Duh:bang: Maybe they see OJ, Jason Young and Brad Cooper and think, hey, I'll get off and get on with my life. We are fast becoming the best place to live, but not in the way I like it. It is now the best place to get away with murder.:eek:

Nancy Cooper, Jenna Nielson, Michelle Young and the Herrera-Diaz murders right here in a little circle, all unsolved.Pretty amazing isn't it? All under the current DA.:mad:

I am getting ready to read Amanda Lamb's book in the next hour. Bought it last night just to see how slow this DA works. It is beginning to appear IMO he has doubts about himself with certain cases, especially ones in the national spotlight. :chicken:

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 08:27 AM
I am getting ready to read Amanda Lamb's book in the next hour. Bought it last night just to see how slow this DA works. It is beginning to appear IMO he has doubts about himself with certain cases, especially ones in the national spotlight. :chicken:

Oh I'm curious. Please share your thoughts on that particular angle. I'm getting the same impression as you, but I'd like to hear more. My current impression (though I hope it's wrong) is that our DA has some things in common with ex Boulder, CO DA Alex Hunter and his reticence to take cases to trial. We cannot abide a scaredy cat, cowering, DA who is so afraid of taking a risk that he remains in the state of inertia because almost no cases rise to the level of 'slam dunk/no brainer.'

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 08:42 AM
Oh I'm curious. Please share your thoughts on that particular angle. I'm getting the same impression as you, but I'd like to hear more. My current impression (though I hope it's wrong) is that our DA has some things in common with ex Boulder, CO DA Alex Hunter and his reticence to take cases to trial. We cannot abide a scaredy cat, cowering, DA who is so afraid of taking a risk that he remains in the state of inertia because almost no cases rise to the level of 'slam dunk/no brainer.'

It's going to be hard to be too open minded because it was so OBVIOUS who killed Eric. How many people had access to arsenic?
After years to get Gammon to talk and he finally is ordered to do so. Give her 2nd degree when she had full intentions of killing him. The DA had specifics on this case. DP was in order for her.

Mr Pussypants took the easy way out IMO:chicken: After reading this maybe just maybe I will have a different perspective of this...we'll see.

bluenoser
09-11-2008, 08:52 AM
Bluenoser, by "index" page, go to the top of this page where your name is in the right uppermost corner saying "welcome bluenoser". Just to the left of that, at the very top of this page it will say Nancy Cooper. Click on that and it will take you to the page that I call the "index" page where you can look for everything.

Thanks for your help.:)

bluenoser
09-11-2008, 08:54 AM
Hi Bluenoser! :)

On post #12 of the 'legal documents' thread, page 43, #17, Diana Duncan talks about an incident that night of the bbq.

Brad didn't understand what Katie wanted because she couldn't talk yet. Nancy was frustrated and told Brad he needed to "pay more attention to the signals."

Welcome to Websleuths, btw.

fran

Thank you :)

jmflu
09-11-2008, 10:00 AM
What a beautiful painting, bluenose!

Topsail Girl
09-11-2008, 10:16 AM
As for DA Willoughby keep in mind that Becky Holt is the assigned DA to Michelle's Young's case. While I agree that DA Willoughby is seemingly letting these perps walk the street I still can't help but wonder who's going to organize the protest when the DA's office takes a circumstantial case to court and loses, and a potential killer goes free for life (a la O.J.)? The statute of limitations on murder never runs out, but an aquittal is forever. Just food for thought.

Just the Fax
09-11-2008, 10:17 AM
90 days sounds like enough time to me, but then you look at a case like the M.Y. case that has dragged on since Nov '06 and you wonder if anything can happen in a timely manner. I bet the CPD will have their part mostly wrapped-up, but being allowed to call him a "POI" if the DA doesn't give the thumbs up? I don't know. "POS" definitely.

DA Colin Willoughby office is extremely conservative and methodical.....he does not shoot from the hip They will not seek an indictment until there is enough evidence to assure a conviction in court. Not knowing what forensic evidence they have, it could be soon or it could be months away.

The DA will never allow the cops to publicly call BC a POI or a suspect

Just the Fax
09-11-2008, 10:26 AM
I am getting ready to read Amanda Lamb's book in the next hour. Bought it last night just to see how slow this DA works. It is beginning to appear IMO he has doubts about himself with certain cases, especially ones in the national spotlight. :chicken:

Read the book, it is very good.
All the DA needs is evidence to get a conviction, you will see that in the book. It took 4 years, but they finally got what they needed and the DA gave the green light to indict. You will also see that the particular assistant DA assigned to the case has a lot of say so.
A cop would not want Ass DA Tom Ford if they wanted to make the arrest.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 11:08 AM
DA Colin Willoughby office is extremely conservative and methodical.....he does not shoot from the hip They will not seek an indictment until there is enough evidence to assure a conviction in court. Not knowing what forensic evidence they have, it could be soon or it could be months away.

The DA will never allow the cops to publicly call BC a POI or a suspect
IMO being conservative and methodical is not always the best answer. So many other things can occur with a possible suspect while he is dotting his i's. Sometimes you have to go with what you have, especially if all avenues have been exhausted.

We all know no one can get 100% convictions that we all would love to see. But it appears he wants 100% record or its a NO go.

Just the Fax
09-11-2008, 11:19 AM
IMO being conservative and methodical is not always the best answer. So many other things can occur with a possible suspect while he is dotting his i's. Sometimes you have to go with what you have, especially if all avenues have been exhausted.

We all know no one can get 100% convictions that we all would love to see. But it appears he wants 100% record or its a NO go.

Like the MY case, I would rather wait until they have an airtight case rather than risk the killer walking.

Patience usually pays in the end .

Topsail Girl
09-11-2008, 11:26 AM
Like the MY case, I would rather wait until they have an airtight case rather than risk the killer walking.

Patience usually pays in the end .

I agree JTF. As frustrating as it is and we know it's coming up on two years for Michelle to get justice. I would rather wait another 2 years than see Jason walk because Willoughby acted out of public demand or carelessness.

ETA and that goes for Brad too.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 11:51 AM
Like the MY case, I would rather wait until they have an airtight case rather than risk the killer walking.

Patience usually pays in the end .

Sometimes there will not be an airtight case. Do we let this person walk around an endless amount of time because we can't be positive we won't get a conviction? Sometimes you have to go with what you got, especially if you have some strong evidence.

There are repercussions to waiting as well. I am not saying it IS time to arrest BC, and I feel he will be sooner than JY since BC has talked.

Just the Fax
09-11-2008, 11:56 AM
Sometimes there will not be an airtight case. Do we let this person walk around an endless amount of time because we can't be positive we won't get a conviction? Sometimes you have to go with what you got, especially if you have some strong evidence.

There are repercussions to waiting as well. I am not saying it IS time to arrest BC, and I feel he will be sooner than JY since BC has talked.


Prime example of waiting....it took the SBI and FBI 14 months to determine JY's hush puppy shoe print left at the scene. Very damning evidence that would have been missed if they made an arrest the first few months.

Who knows, maybe the DA has the Cooper file and plans to indict very soon.

Topsail Girl
09-11-2008, 12:02 PM
Waiting for justice for someone you care about is a long, frustrating and sometimes painful journey. Especially when you know who the guilty party is. All the evidence whether circumstantial or not makes it obvious to you who is guilty. Unfortunately though being emotionally involved keeps us from seeing the case as a whole and what the DA needs to get a solid conviction.

fran
09-11-2008, 12:20 PM
I can't recall now the 'name' associated with this case, but there was this one case where the body was not found, but LE felt they had enough evidence, including an 'eye witness' that one guy had murdered his gf. At the time, LE knew there had been photos taken of part of the crime, yet they couldn't find them and continued with the prosecution.

Well, the guy was found NOT guilty.

Some time later, the new owners of the suspects former home were having new carpeting layed and the workman found the pictures of the 'crime' in a floorboard or something. Anyway, the guy had already been tried and found NOT guilty and walked......................

I know it's hard when we are ALMOST positive and everything points toward the culprit, but the DA has to feel comfortable that it will be enough to convince twelve people that the suspect is guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

That is one of the problems of 'domestic violence,' in that the forensics used in 'stranger type crimes,' doesn't necessarily work because you expect their partner's DNA, etc, to be there. IMO, what MAY work for Nancy COULD be the contents of her stomach. Not sure, but possible to establish TOD. And that would be IF it was soon after she returned home during the early morning hours after the BBQ.

JMHO
fran

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 12:25 PM
Prime example of waiting....it took the SBI and FBI 14 months to determine JY's hush puppy shoe print left at the scene. Very damning evidence that would have been missed if they made an arrest the first few months.

Who knows, maybe the DA has the Cooper file and plans to indict very soon.

I fully understand and do not disagree at all about this amount of time being needed. I do have an issue with 4 years passing. By this time other cases are on the forefront and headlined.

IMO most of the evidence they are going to use against a defendent was accumulated in the beginning. To sit years in hope for just 1 more piece comes along is not going to always be the most wise decision.

Question...even if a suspect is arrested this doesn't mean the DA can't continue to get evidence against them or does it? They still have what appears to be at least a year following the arrest to build the case until trial.

Daphne69
09-11-2008, 12:30 PM
ITA that patience and persistence may be the best course to ensure a conviction of the guilty party. The part that I find frustrating is that that may mean years that a child is raised by a murderer.:steamed: A few years are a good portion of any childhood.

jilly
09-11-2008, 12:31 PM
A cop would not want Ass DA Tom Ford if they wanted to make the arrest.

What a lulu that guy was on the case. Do you know if he's still there?

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 12:52 PM
Who knows, maybe the DA has the Cooper file and plans to indict very soon.

I've mentioned this before, and am not 100% sure about it, but my assumption is that the DA could have very well already done to the GJ to request an indictment in the NC (and even MY case for that matter), and been turned down (and/or told to bring some more).

[ In other words, we don't know for sure that the DA's office is the 'hold-up' all the time... they could very well be trying to get an indictment, but keep getting turned down by those sticklers on the GJ... :) ]

It might not be probable... but it is possible, isn't it? [ I assume, but not 100% sure, that all GJ indictment sessions are kept secret, including negative outcomes ]

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 12:57 PM
The DA will never allow the cops to publicly call BC a POI or a suspect

For the time being at least, this position by the DA would seem to not hurt BC's chances in the upcoming custody hearing. In fact, it seems like it would help him quite a bit. BC's attorney: "Your honor, despite the warrants and initial hullabaloo, etc... he has not been arrested, named a suspect, or even a person of interest..."

Side-bar: Has the husband in either of the 2 recent (other) local tragedies been named suspect/POI... seems I recall at least one of them had. [ I still get confused as to why some are... some aren't... almost seems random sometimes whether they name someone or not before arrest...]

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 01:05 PM
I've mentioned this before, and am not 100% sure about it, but my assumption is that the DA could have very well already done to the GJ to request an indictment in the NC (and even MY case for that matter), and been turned down (and/or told to bring some more).

[ In other words, we don't know for sure that the DA's office is the 'hold-up' all the time... they could very well be trying to get an indictment, but keep getting turned down by those sticklers on the GJ... :) ]

It might not be probable... but it is possible, isn't it? [ I assume, but not 100% sure, that all GJ indictment sessions are kept secret, including negative outcomes ]


JS...as of Tuesday at 1pm there had been nothing by the GJ. I was in an attorney's office :mad: and I brought this topic up and they called for me. I was also told if the DNA came back as a match and CPD wanted to move forward they could make an arrest without a GJ.

jmflu
09-11-2008, 03:48 PM
Brad Cooper wants slain wife's friends to back up claims


http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3529547/

fran
09-11-2008, 03:52 PM
Brad Cooper wants slain wife's friends to back up claims


http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3529547/

Hi jmflu!

We have a thread on this. Come join us!

;)

fran

jmflu
09-11-2008, 03:58 PM
I'm slow, ain't I?
:beagle:

Well... at least I didn't repost the same link! lol

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 05:00 PM
JS...as of Tuesday at 1pm there had been nothing by the GJ. I was in an attorney's office :mad: and I brought this topic up and they called for me

Thanks MT3... good to know. I didn't realize that GJ presentations (especially those that don't result in indictments) would necessarily be shared with the public. Just for my clarification - are you saying, you had an 'inside-connection' via your appointment at an attorneys office, and were able to confirm that no GJ requests had been made related to the Cooper case to date? (not questioning your statement here at all - just wanting to understand it). Thanks.

jmflu
09-11-2008, 09:18 PM
I sure wish some of you would go on WRAL to their comments site and put some of your incredible collections of information on there. That site seems to be no more than a collection of one-liners, mostly very mean. It upsets me that people are sitting there saying, "Go Brad!" and saying NC's friends are "busybodys" and "Cary hens." It almost seems crazy to me that there are actually people on there vilifying the victim and her friends!!! I am trying to fight the good fight, but then they turn on me and say I must go to the police with my so-called information and I must be one of the nosy neighbors. I don't have a problem in the world with a person who isn't convinced BC is guilty, but to post one-liners about people who are involved in the case and caring and helpful... it's almost more than I can take. Please, if any of you have the time, go on GOLO and put some real information on there for those people to digest! Maybe some of them will get a clue! Every time they post a story on WRAL about NC and we all live by the news, people go on there and say they are "so tired" of Amanda Lamb going to BC's door and "harassing him."

What is wrong with people??!

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 11:32 PM
Thanks MT3... good to know. I didn't realize that GJ presentations (especially those that don't result in indictments) would necessarily be shared with the public. Just for my clarification - are you saying, you had an 'inside-connection' via your appointment at an attorneys office, and were able to confirm that no GJ requests had been made related to the Cooper case to date? (not questioning your statement here at all - just wanting to understand it). Thanks.
No, what I am saying is no indictments had been handed down for BC as of 1pm on Monday. I didn't say ones GJ heard and not given an indictment. Not saying one didn't come in after 2:30. We were told to check back, but I didn't.
HAHA...no inside connection. Just a paid attorney I should keep on payroll with these dang kids racking points up on insurance.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 11:37 PM
I sure wish some of you would go on WRAL to their comments site and put some of your incredible collections of information on there. That site seems to be no more than a collection of one-liners, mostly very mean. It upsets me that people are sitting there saying, "Go Brad!" and saying NC's friends are "busybodys" and "Cary hens." It almost seems crazy to me that there are actually people on there vilifying the victim and her friends!!! I am trying to fight the good fight, but then they turn on me and say I must go to the police with my so-called information and I must be one of the nosy neighbors. I don't have a problem in the world with a person who isn't convinced BC is guilty, but to post one-liners about people who are involved in the case and caring and helpful... it's almost more than I can take. Please, if any of you have the time, go on GOLO and put some real information on there for those people to digest! Maybe some of them will get a clue! Every time they post a story on WRAL about NC and we all live by the news, people go on there and say they are "so tired" of Amanda Lamb going to BC's door and "harassing him."

What is wrong with people??!
They are reacting to only what WRAL has put up. They have no idea what else is out there because of their tunnel vision.
Ignore them...they are not worth it.

jmflu
09-11-2008, 11:44 PM
They are reacting to only what WRAL has put up. They have no idea what else is out there because of their tunnel vision.
Ignore them...they are not worth it.

Maybe I'm just wanting to educate them... one thing I hate about the internet is people just get on and spew hate and whatever else they want just because they can be anonymous. People get used to that and take it into real life.

At least WRAL does some monitoring and won't let their worst words come through. I suppose I just have to stop going there. I had just hoped we could educate them, but you guys are so much more knowledgable about the case and I just get so emotionally involved that they think I am one of NC's friends! And take it as a bad thing and that I'm biased!

Thanks for the advice, Mom.

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 06:44 AM
No, what I am saying is no indictments had been handed down for BC as of 1pm on Monday. I didn't say ones GJ heard and not given an indictment. Not saying one didn't come in after 2:30. We were told to check back, but I didn't.
HAHA...no inside connection. Just a paid attorney I should keep on payroll with these dang kids racking points up on insurance.

Okay - thanks. So while we know that no indictments have been issued in this case... we don't know for sure that no presentations have been put forth to the GJ in this case. [ ie, it's possible the DA has gone to the GJ on this one (and/ even the MY case for that matter), but been denied by the GJ due to lack of sufficient evidence... ]

BirdHunter
09-12-2008, 06:55 AM
I've mentioned this before, and am not 100% sure about it, but my assumption is that the DA could have very well already done to the GJ to request an indictment in the NC (and even MY case for that matter), and been turned down (and/or told to bring some more).

[ In other words, we don't know for sure that the DA's office is the 'hold-up' all the time... they could very well be trying to get an indictment, but keep getting turned down by those sticklers on the GJ... :) ]

It might not be probable... but it is possible, isn't it? [ I assume, but not 100% sure, that all GJ indictment sessions are kept secret, including negative outcomes ]You are correct in the direction you are headed. Some grand jury indictment sessions are kept "secret" in NC as are the presentment hearings to the grand jury. In these presentment cases the DA has the opportunity to present the case to be heard with the opportunity to get an indictment or to be told that they need to strengthen their cases in particular areas. No witnesses are called. No one is told outside the DA's office or LE involved on the case that it has taken place. BC would not be told. However, keep in mind that time and money would prevent the DA from presenting multiple times. I am not saying that they would never go back to GJ if told that they had a very good case but just needed one more thing, but they usually do not go until they are pretty sure they are ready to avoid having this happen.

BirdHunter
09-12-2008, 06:57 AM
Okay - thanks. So while we know that no indictments have been issued in this case... we don't know for sure that no presentations have been put forth to the GJ in this case. [ ie, it's possible the DA has gone to the GJ on this one (and/ even the MY case for that matter), but been denied by the GJ due to lack of sufficient evidence... ]If the indictment is sealed you would not know if one was issued until it was acted upon.

BirdHunter
09-12-2008, 07:00 AM
ITA that patience and persistence may be the best course to ensure a conviction of the guilty party. The part that I find frustrating is that that may mean years that a child is raised by a murderer.:steamed: A few years are a good portion of any childhood.Unfortunately this can and does happen. It is not right and it is not fair.

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 07:10 AM
Double-murderer O.J. Simpson is one such example. His rel'p with his youngest daughter was particularly volatile, with her calling 911 on at least two occasions growing up. She was 9 when her mom was murdered. Now 24. F'd up and unhappy and was stuck with an emotionally abusive, narcissistic, drug-abusing, killer father. At least she's old enough to escape him now.

These killers screw up their kids lives forevermore with their selfish actions. The kids don't recover from having their mothers torn away from them. And then later, when they're older, they learn the truth about the nature of what happened to mommy.

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 10:58 AM
You are correct in the direction you are headed. Some grand jury indictment sessions are kept "secret" in NC as are the presentment hearings to the grand jury. In these presentment cases the DA has the opportunity to present the case to be heard with the opportunity to get an indictment or to be told that they need to strengthen their cases in particular areas. No witnesses are called. No one is told outside the DA's office or LE involved on the case that it has taken place. BC would not be told. However, keep in mind that time and money would prevent the DA from presenting multiple times. I am not saying that they would never go back to GJ if told that they had a very good case but just needed one more thing, but they usually do not go until they are pretty sure they are ready to avoid having this happen.

Thanks - good info, and makes sense...

fran
09-12-2008, 12:24 PM
Thanks - good info, and makes sense...

I second jumpstreet, BirdHunter!

We can only hope that LE is just doing the best they can with what they have and there's enough dots and crosses for those i's and t's, to insure there's eventually justice for Nancy.

Hopefully sooner than later!

JMHO
fran

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 12:35 PM
I second jumpstreet, BirdHunter!

We can only hope that LE is just doing the best they can with what they have and there's enough dots and crosses for those i's and t's, to insure there's eventually justice for Nancy.

Hopefully sooner than later!

JMHO
fran


Fran - thanks for your latest link above to 14 NBC. Seems Mark Sullivan hit the nail on the head : "Tell me everything you know so we won't be surprised at trial ". Interesting comment.

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 01:10 PM
Fran - thanks for your latest link above to 14 NBC. Seems Mark Sullivan hit the nail on the head : "Tell me everything you know so we won't be surprised at trial ". Interesting comment.

The same attorney (article says Sullivan is a family law specialist that News14 interviewed...) also notes- ... "the documents requested in the subpoenas are not out of the ordinary when custody of children is at stake."

So, the action by BC and his attorneys doesn't seem to necessarily be 'out of the ordinary', or 'ruthless' necessarily, but rather, quite typical in a custody case. Time will tell I suppose how much is allowed by the judge and how much is considered relevant, but at least the requesting part... seems to not be uncommon. Good to know.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 01:23 PM
The same attorney (article says Sullivan is a family law specialist that News14 interviewed...) also notes- ... "the documents requested in the subpoenas are not out of the ordinary when custody of children is at stake."

So, the action by BC and his attorneys doesn't seem to necessarily be 'out of the ordinary', or 'ruthless' necessarily, but rather, quite typical in a custody case. Time will tell I suppose how much is allowed by the judge and how much is considered relevant, but at least the requesting part... seems to not be uncommon. Good to know.

Told you there was nothing unusual about this case :crazy:

fran
09-12-2008, 01:27 PM
Fran - thanks for your latest link above to 14 NBC. Seems Mark Sullivan hit the nail on the head : "Tell me everything you know so we won't be surprised at trial ". Interesting comment.

y/w raisincharlie:

Which trial would that be? ;)

fran

fran
09-12-2008, 01:30 PM
The same attorney (article says Sullivan is a family law specialist that News14 interviewed...) also notes- ... "the documents requested in the subpoenas are not out of the ordinary when custody of children is at stake."

So, the action by BC and his attorneys doesn't seem to necessarily be 'out of the ordinary', or 'ruthless' necessarily, but rather, quite typical in a custody case. Time will tell I suppose how much is allowed by the judge and how much is considered relevant, but at least the requesting part... seems to not be uncommon. Good to know.

IMHO, I do NOT believe that guy read every single document. I don't see what an affair/NOT affair of Jessica and her husband has to do with BRAD being an UNFIT father. b/s:mad:

Besides, who keeps emails? NOT me.

LOL, what's Brad's lawyer think, ONE of US is any of those people he has listed?:rolleyes:

JMHO
fran

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 01:31 PM
y/w raisincharlie:

Which trial would that be? ;)

fran


My suspicion - it is definitely more oriented to a murder trial as there is absolutely no way affairs or no affairs relating to the friends has any possible bearing on the custody issue - kinda like Brad's own affidavits:crazy:

Fishing for the future.

jmflu
09-12-2008, 01:34 PM
I don't see what an affair/NOT affair of Jessica and her husband has to do with BRAD being an UNFIT father. b/s - fran

there is absolutely no way affairs or no affairs relating to the friends has any possible bearing on the custody issue - rc

Don't you guys think, though, that what he is trying to do is make it seem as though his cheating has no bearing on him being a fit father, as he has proof that others do it too, and therefore it is commonplace?

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 01:36 PM
Told you there was nothing unusual about this case :crazy:

:rolling: Hee hee... yes, I do remember you mentioned that. :)

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 01:42 PM
I don't see what an affair/NOT affair of Jessica and her husband has to do with BRAD being an UNFIT father. b/s - fran

there is absolutely no way affairs or no affairs relating to the friends has any possible bearing on the custody issue - rc

Don't you guys think, though, that what he is trying to do is make it seem as though his cheating has no bearing on him being a fit father, as he has proof that others do it too, and therefore it is commonplace?

Being common place - if it is - doesn't mean it is right and doesn't give him a legal right to do it as well. This is about smear and nothing more. He is vindictive more than worrying about his kids IMO.

fran
09-12-2008, 01:45 PM
I don't see what an affair/NOT affair of Jessica and her husband has to do with BRAD being an UNFIT father. b/s - fran

there is absolutely no way affairs or no affairs relating to the friends has any possible bearing on the custody issue - rc

Don't you guys think, though, that what he is trying to do is make it seem as though his cheating has no bearing on him being a fit father, as he has proof that others do it too, and therefore it is commonplace?


NO, I THINK he's trying to destroy everything in his path to his OWN destruction!:furious:

Seriously.....

Like others have said, what's done is done. Nancy is dead and nothing can change that. Did Brad do it? Some think so.......even LE suspects it per all accounts.

Brad KNOWS what he did and he KNOWS he can't change it and he KNOWS in his heart, he's going down for it, :mad:, IMHO.

On his way down, he's going to take anyone and everyone that opposed him!:eek:

FWIW, maybe NOW those who thought Nancy was an embellisher, see that she was NOT! He's EXACTLY what Nancy portrayed, IMHO.:chicken:

JMHO
fran

PS........ALSO, FWIW, I believe that this shot over the bow, is a warning to anyone else out there, who was THINKING about possibly going to LE, you say anything to LE about your past dealings with me, you'll get the same treatment! I'll tear you to ribbons! :eek:.....jmho, fran

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 01:50 PM
Told you there was nothing unusual about this case :crazy:

Heh! Yes, that's right. One more example of that. :)

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 01:53 PM
Being common place - if it is - doesn't mean it is right and doesn't give him a legal right to do it as well. This is about smear and nothing more. He is vindictive more than worrying about his kids IMO.

Yes, exactly! Remember the kids of these various folks are the same kids that Bella & Katie played with and went to kiddie parties with. This is the kids' social structure--the one that Brad refers to in his affidavits. Now the parents of Katie & Bella's friends are being trashed and in areas that have NOTHING to do with either a custody issue or are connected to Nancy's murder. Vindictive is the right word for that.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 02:00 PM
Since you live in NC - how loud would an arguement in February have to be for the neighbors to hear it and to approach the house and ask about taking the children for a while ?

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 02:09 PM
I don't live in that neighborhood. And of course it all depends on things like where in the house the argument took place, the type of construction and insulation that may provide noise dampening qualities, the time of day/night and where the neighbors were, physically, in relation to where the argument occurred. Were any windows open in either the Cooper house or at any of the neighbors' houses? Did any dogs bark? All variables that come into play. The argument would likely have to be pretty LOUD for anyone to hear....let's start inside the house though. Did either of the KIDS hear their parents arguing? Is it possible one or both kids 'heard' the murder of their mother? Or at least heard their mommy struggling?

As for last February...where did the argument take place? Was it outside? Which neighbor heard?

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 02:27 PM
O/T - if you live in NC and you need gas you should get to a station right away. It was 3.69 this am and it was 4.19 at 2pm and Exxon spokesperson said it would be 5.50 or more by 7pm tonight.

jmflu
09-12-2008, 02:40 PM
O/T - if you live in NC and you need gas you should get to a station right away. It was 3.69 this am and it was 4.19 at 2pm and Exxon spokesperson said it would be 5.50 or more by 7pm tonight.


But they also said not to quick rush out and get gas just to top off your tank, because that would SURELY run the supply out! Only get it if you need it!

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 02:42 PM
But they also said not to quick rush out and get gas just to top off your tank, because that would SURELY run the supply out! Only get it if you need it!

Oh shoot I forgot to post that. That's what I get for assuming - I was on Empty so I had to get gas and so was my daughter. Luckily we filled up this morning.

PS I saw you trying to fight the good fight over at GoLO - it's a no win situation over there!!!!!

jmflu
09-12-2008, 02:47 PM
Oh shoot I forgot to post that. That's what I get for assuming - I was on Empty so I had to get gas and so was my daughter. Luckily we filled up this morning.

PS I saw you trying to fight the good fight over at GoLO - it's a no win situation over there!!!!!

But if you, wonderful, intelligent, helpful Topsail Girl, would get 30 of your closest buddies from WS and go on over there and teach 'em a thing or two, maybe they wouldn't post so quickly. It's just a completely different world over there, isn't it? The land of the "how smart a$$ can I be in two lines?"

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 03:15 PM
They just don't get it. I'd be willing to bet half the people posting over there are friends of Brads or just complete moroons - (you might not recognize moroons. It's an old timers joke around here meaning morons) :-)

ETA - you can't have an intelligent discussion with posters with 2 brain cells and GoLo is full of 'em!!!

jmflu
09-12-2008, 03:21 PM
They just don't get it. I'd be willing to bet half the people posting over there are friends of Brads or just complete moroons - (you might not recognize moroons. It's an old timers joke around here meaning morons) :-)

ETA - you can't have an intelligent discussion with posters with 2 brain cells and GoLo is full of 'em!!!

Why IS that, TG?? I just don't want to let it go because those people seem sum educatin'!! I want them to see there is a much more civilized way of doing things, of discussing the issues... aggghhh... how can you help getting on there and posting responses? Several of those posters even have the word "mom" in them and they are posting "Go Brad!" "Sue the neighbors!" "Cary hens!" "Busybody neighbors!" It drives me crazy because here a murder has occured, and they still want people to mind their own business?! They even say JA is suspicious because she called the police! I just want to tell them all off for being so ignorant!!!

Ok, I know I am banging my head against a wall... but it just makes me want to :puke:

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 03:25 PM
I don't live in that neighborhood. And of course it all depends on things like where in the house the argument took place, the type of construction and insulation that may provide noise dampening qualities, the time of day/night and where the neighbors were, physically, in relation to where the argument occurred. Were any windows open in either the Cooper house or at any of the neighbors' houses? Did any dogs bark? All variables that come into play. The argument would likely have to be pretty LOUD for anyone to hear....let's start inside the house though. Did either of the KIDS hear their parents arguing? Is it possible one or both kids 'heard' the murder of their mother? Or at least heard their mommy struggling?

As for last February...where did the argument take place? Was it outside? Which neighbor heard?

Guess I should have been more to the point. Climate wise - is it cool enough in February to have a house closed up to keep warm for instance ? For sake of discussion if the argument was indoors, it was cold enough to have a house closed up, the neighbors as well would you think it had to have been a pretty loud argument even to heard in houses to the left and right of the Cooper house ? If the neighbors that heard the argument came from across the street, under such conditions, had to have been really loud yes ? If the neighbors came for the children - if the argument was ooutside and the kids inside why bother as long as the children were not in the same area?

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 03:27 PM
Why IS that, TG?? I just don't want to let it go because those people seem sum educatin'!! I want them to see there is a much more civilized way of doing things, of discussing the issues... aggghhh... how can you help getting on there and posting responses? Several of those posters even have the word "mom" in them and they are posting "Go Brad!" "Sue the neighbors!" "Cary hens!" "Busybody neighbors!" It drives me crazy because here a murder has occured, and they still want people to mind their own business?! They even say JA is suspicious because she called the police! I just want to tell them all off for being so ignorant!!!

Ok, I know I am banging my head against a wall... but it just makes me want to :puke:

I have seen the bash dead babies, dead wives/moms - you name it I've seen it. And oddly enough there are a few "regulars" over there that don't live in NC. They may have gone to school here or had a freind move here - etc. They don't know anything about the area, the people, etc. yet go on there and post as if they are living right next door to the crime scene or something. Even the State Trooper that was killed this past week was up for bashing and the man was serving the public and doing his job for Pete's sake!!! :mad: That place is almost as bad as In Session - I just stay away to keep from getting banned or sitting on my hands all the darn time.

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 03:29 PM
RC February is tricky. It's usually a farily cold month. However my wedding reception was Feb 2nd (I'm not telling the year LOL) and it turned out to be 80 degrees that day. As a GENERAL rule though, February is a cold month - cold enough for the house to have been closed up.

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 03:33 PM
Climate wise - is it cool enough in February to have a house closed up to keep warm for instance ?

Yes it is cool/cold enough in Feb. to keep a house closed up. However, there is the odd warmish type day that will occur so ... Winters here are mild compared to those up in the mountains or say, in the northeast. VERY mild. Usually in the 40's and will get as high as the low 50's, but some days will stay in the high 30's. It depends...

For sake of discussion if the argument was indoors, it was cold enough to have a house closed up, the neighbors as well would you think it had to have been a pretty loud argument even to heard in houses to the left and right of the Cooper house ? If the neighbors that heard the argument came from across the street, under such conditions, had to have been really loud yes ? If the neighbors came for the children - if the argument was ooutside and the kids inside why bother as long as the children were not in the same area?

If the houses were all closed up and the neighbors could hear an argument inside their house coming from inside a neighbor's house then yes, IMHO, the argument was REALLY LOUD. If the neighbors were outside and could hear a fight coming from inside someone's house the fight would still be loud, IMHO. And if an argument took place either outside or in the garage area or there was a door or window open, then of course the argument would not have to be quite as loud to be heard by neighbors. Sound can bounce around in interesting ways too, as I learned personally late one night.

momto3kids
09-12-2008, 03:39 PM
O/T - if you live in NC and you need gas you should get to a station right away. It was 3.69 this am and it was 4.19 at 2pm and Exxon spokesperson said it would be 5.50 or more by 7pm tonight.


TG..I posted this last night also. There were already signs posted at 10pm where I went for max. of 10 gallons.

I know not every state was in the diagram that would be affected at the moment, but it was from TX around the perimeter to VA. So in other words anyone who lives in a state that has a coast you are affected if you live between TX and VA.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 03:40 PM
Thanks for the climate data all. Seems like a higher probability it was cool enough to have a closed house, especially with a baby under 2 present. Appreciate it !

jmflu
09-12-2008, 03:47 PM
TG..I posted this last night also. There were already signs posted at 10pm where I went for max. of 10 gallons.

I know not every state was in the diagram that would be affected at the moment, but it was from TX around the perimeter to VA. So in other words anyone who lives in a state that has a coast you are affected if you live between TX and VA.


If you MUST get gas (try to hold off from just topping off your tank because there is a real threat we may just run ourselves right on out of gas temporarily if everyone runs to the tank!) then check gasbuddy.com to locate the least expensive gas in your area!

LOL While I'm typing this, my mother calls to tell me to go get gas...

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 03:57 PM
If you MUST get gas (try to hold off from just topping off your tank because there is a real threat we may just run ourselves right on out of gas temporarily if everyone runs to the tank!) then check gasbuddy.com to locate the least expensive gas in your area!

LOL While I'm typing this, my mother calls to tell me to go get gas...

We are telling our drivers not to top off their tanks today unless they are working a shift tomorrow. Trying not to cause a panic here.

jmflu
09-12-2008, 03:59 PM
We are telling our drivers not to top off their tanks today unless they are working a shift tomorrow. Trying not to cause a panic here.

Do you think people will listen, or be more concerned about getting their own gas at the lower prices?

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 04:04 PM
Do you think people will listen, or be more concerned about getting their own gas at the lower prices?

Hard to say. Do people ever listen?? :crazy:

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 04:06 PM
Did anyone ever find a link to Susan Crook's GMA interview?

jmflu
09-12-2008, 04:07 PM
Hard to say. Do people ever listen?? :crazy:

Do you think if we go on GOLO and tell them to GO GET GAS! they might not, just to be that way?

:)

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 04:08 PM
Did anyone ever find a link to Susan Crook's GMA interview?

Do you wonder why she didn't file an affidavit but yet Brad seems to think she contacted Interact on behalf of Nancy ? Sure has me curious. :crazy:

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 04:10 PM
Do you think if we go on GOLO and tell them to GO GET GAS! they might not, just to be that way?

:)

:banghead: :banghead: Sure give it a try :floorlaugh:

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 04:11 PM
Do you wonder why she didn't file an affidavit but yet Brad seems to think she contacted Interact on behalf of Nancy ? Sure has me curious. :crazy:


Has me curious too and I even thought that maybe Susan worked with Interact and saw "signs". I just don't get it. I was hoping to see the GMA video to see if it would give me some clues.

jmflu
09-12-2008, 04:12 PM
:banghead: :banghead: Sure give it a try :floorlaugh:

I have to stay away for a while. My blood pressure gets too high. Only Nancy is worth arguing with them over.

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 04:15 PM
$4.09 at my neighborhood station. I already had half a tank so I added a few more gallons and I'm fine for the next week or two.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 04:32 PM
Has me curious too and I even thought that maybe Susan worked with Interact and saw "signs". I just don't get it. I was hoping to see the GMA video to see if it would give me some clues.

I checked out GMA and found the following videos:

http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=nancy%20cooper%20murder&from=0&to=9&type=video


I see an interview with Hannah Pritchard, Michelle Simmons, and Jessica Adam but no interview with Susan Crook. Hmmmmm.

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 04:37 PM
O/T again but any local - I'm volunteering in the morning to go to Stem and join the search for Kelly Morris. If any of you would like to go please PM me and I'll give you the info and we can meet up if you'd like to.

RC - I'll check out those interview and I'll keep digging for the Susan link. Do you suppose Brad is mistaken about Susan being on GMA? Did any of you posters see it? I wonder if it exists or he's just mistaken.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 04:39 PM
O/T again but any local - I'm volunteering in the morning to go to Stem and join the search for Kelly Morris. If any of you would like to go please PM me and I'll give you the info and we can meet up if you'd like to.

RC - I'll check out those interview and I'll keep digging for the Susan link. Do you suppose Brad is mistaken about Susan being on GMA? Did any of you posters see it? I wonder if it exists or he's just mistaken.


Dunno Topsail. I am wondering however if she might have been the neighbor that went to the house to see about taking care of the children during the heated argument in February. Dunno what to think actually but do know she was with the group of friends Saturday when they all found out Nancy did not jog with Cary Clarke.

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 04:39 PM
I never saw or heard of Susan Crook before his subpoena came out.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 04:41 PM
I never saw or heard of Susan Crook before his subpoena came out.

She does have an interview on WRAL that I recall reading through. This is how I know they all knew Saturday that Cary and Nancy didn't jog.


She also is not on the list of people who Brad wants to know if the friends have had contact in various forms with, either.

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 04:44 PM
hmmm.... I have not seen all the various TV interviews in this case.

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 04:45 PM
I never saw or heard of Susan Crook before his subpoena came out.

I'm wondering if the reference to SC's GMA interview was an oversight in her subpoena...

... Did the 3 who *did* do a GMA interview get subpoenaed, with references to GMA in theirs? Did anyone else (besides those 3, and SC) have a GMA reference?

It's either an oversight... OR... some other GMA interview that we're not aware of, that apparantly has something interesting in it...

For that matter, I saw nothing of substantial interest in the GMA interview linked either, so it's curious for sure.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 04:47 PM
I'm wondering if the reference to SC's GMA interview was an oversight in her subpoena...

... Did the 3 who *did* do a GMA interview get subpoenaed, with references to GMA in theirs? Did anyone else (besides those 3, and SC) have a GMA reference?

It's either an oversight... OR... some other GMA interview that we're not aware of, that apparantly has something interesting in it...

For that matter, I saw nothing of substantial interest in the GMA interview linked either, so it's curious for sure.


Personally I think he is more interested to see if they received money as he is asking for copies of the contracts to do the interviews. Kind of like smear someone who has talked to the Enquirer type thing seems to me.

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 04:54 PM
Personally I think he is more interested to see if they received money as he is asking for copies of the contracts to do the interviews. Kind of like smear someone who has talked to the Enquirer type thing seems to me.

Ya... that's a good thought RC... hadn't thought of that, but I bet that's it...

If they did accept $$ to do that GMA commentary (especially the one linked, where they all were fairly emotional)... I suppose that might not put them in the best light...

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 04:57 PM
hmmm.... I have not seen all the various TV interviews in this case.


Here's a link to a video on ABC 11 - (WTVD)

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6310421

The transcript of the video is below the video box - Susan Crook is quoted in the transcript.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 05:03 PM
Has me curious too and I even thought that maybe Susan worked with Interact and saw "signs". I just don't get it. I was hoping to see the GMA video to see if it would give me some clues.


This is a possibility that Susan works for Interact but I am wondering how she got involved so early on Saturday unless LE contacted Interact immediately for victims assistance which we know Cary LE does have an advertisment for Interact on their website. possible - she is not on the "list" that Brad wants everyone's correspondence from.

CyberPro
09-12-2008, 05:32 PM
Oh shoot I forgot to post that. That's what I get for assuming - I was on Empty so I had to get gas and so was my daughter. Luckily we filled up this morning.

PS I saw you trying to fight the good fight over at GoLO - it's a no win situation over there!!!!!


Yes, and I would not encourage them to visit us here, I have largely stopped reading GOLO, because it was a bunch of tripe, and I do not have time for that.

Only good thing is, that is where I first heard about WS, and I've been happy ever since! :)

CyberPro

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 05:50 PM
I concur with CyberPro. Time is such a precious resource--why waste it trying to impart wisdom or argue with people you'll never meet and who could care less?

MoonFlwr
09-12-2008, 10:46 PM
Hi jmflu!

We have a thread on this. Come join us!

;)

fran

Hi

What is the name of the thread, if you don't mind me asking! :)

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 11:03 PM
Here's a link to a video on ABC 11 - (WTVD)

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6310421

The transcript of the video is below the video box - Susan Crook is quoted in the transcript.

Thanks RC! I did see the transcript earlier today and caught up on one more video by watching that just now.

fran
09-12-2008, 11:49 PM
Hi

What is the name of the thread, if you don't mind me asking! :)

Hi MoonFlowr!

It's the thread titled, "Nancy's Friends Object!"

:)
fran

runr
09-14-2008, 05:53 PM
I have not noticed anywhere any mention of NC or her family having a religious affiliation. Do you all know anything about this?

Star12
09-14-2008, 06:34 PM
I have not noticed anywhere any mention of NC or her family having a religious affiliation. Do you all know anything about this?


The churches both in Cary and in Edmonton were, I do believe, Lutheran.

momto3kids
09-15-2008, 05:17 PM
Well, well....got to see the :loser: up close today, actually too close for comfort IMO. I had just walked down the wine aisle cutting thru to the meat area at HT(yes, THE HT), actually thinking about how many times NC had probably been there herself. NC was so on my mind today.....go around the end cap and bang....right into BC and his mom! I looked him in the eyes, then at huge tattoo on his leg to confirm to myself that it WAS him, then back to him, he looked away to lean forward to hear what mommy dearest was saying to him, she was by the way pushing the cart. 5 minutes later I went down an aisle and before I got to the end they went into the check out lane I was coming to the end of. So guess who pays for the groceries??? Hint...it isn't BC.:crazy:

Sandals were NOT rainbows but a slip on that has a wide band over the top of his foot, shorts, short sleeve t-shirt and he is STILL wearing his wedding band. Yes, wedding band!

SleuthyGal
09-15-2008, 05:21 PM
Well, well....got to see the :loser: up close today, actually too close for comfort IMO. I had just walked down the wine aisle cutting thru to the meat area at HT(yes, THE HT), actually thinking about how many times NC had probably been there herself. NC was so on my mind today.....go around the end cap and bang....right into BC and his mom! I looked him in the eyes, then that huge tattoo on his leg, then back to him, he looked away to lean forward to hear what mommy dearest was saying to him, she was by the way pushing the cart. 5 minutes later I went down an aisle and before I got to the end they went into the check out lane I was coming to the end of. So guess who pays for the groceries??? Hint...it isn't BC.:crazy:

Sandals were NOT rainbows but a slip on that has a wide band over the top of his foot, shorts, short sleeve t-shirt and is STILL wearing his wedding band. Yes, wedding band!

I wondered if he had taken off the wedding band yet. Did it appear that other people recognized him in the store? And the most important question of all...did he use his VIC card??? :bang:

mahmoo
09-15-2008, 05:27 PM
Looks like mommy is doing the cleaning, shopping and cooking for her wittle boy :rolleyes:. Is his dad there too ???

Interesting that he's still wearing the wedding ring.....just for appearances more than likely.

On a side-note.......you must still be having an adrenalin rush huh mt3k.....LOL.

momto3kids
09-15-2008, 05:37 PM
I wondered if he had taken off the wedding band yet. Did it appear that other people recognized him in the store? And the most important question of all...did he use his VIC card??? :bang:

I don't know about the VIC card. I noticed mommy dearest signing the slip and BC took the receipt. Is he broke? Is he not wanting a paper trail? Why in the heck do you stand back and let mommy dearest pay, when she is your guest?

SG...I don't know if anyone noticed them. It actually makes me sick to see him go around like nothing is wrong. I didn't follow them at all. I know myself too well and might have said something in passing so chose to remove myself from the situation rather than cause a scene. Another HT, maybe, but not this one.

SleuthyGal
09-15-2008, 05:39 PM
When I'm with my parents (they retired to FL) they pay for everything too. And my mother did that when she and her sister came and stayed with me for 16 days last year. Doesn't matter that I am gainfully employed and they're retired. Although they will allow me to treat sometimes, but that's a smaller % of time. My dad even less so than my mother; he pays for everything (restaurants, etc.) when I'm visiting.

So that part (mommy paying) doesn't shock me so much, having experienced it myself. Some parents still think of their grown kids as their 'babies' no matter what the reality is. My mother thinks I'm still 12 yrs old.

momto3kids
09-15-2008, 05:44 PM
Looks like mommy is doing the cleaning, shopping and cooking for her wittle boy :rolleyes:. Is his dad there too ???

Interesting that he's still wearing the wedding ring.....just for appearances more than likely.

On a side-note.......you must still be having an adrenalin rush huh mt3k.....LOL.

I have not heard about his daddy being here, but heard he is back at home teaching.

Yes...adrenalin rush it was. Actually shaking after I looked him twice in his eyes to realize what he is capable of. To think just 15 seconds before this...I was wondering how many times NC has been down this aisle. I don't drink wine and never cut thru this aisle which surprised me, but I did it.

I actually had to make a phone call to someone very familiar with this case to listen to me so I could get it off my chest rather than blurt something out to him!

SleuthyGal
09-15-2008, 05:46 PM
It actually makes me sick to see him go around like nothing is wrong. I didn't follow them at all. I know myself too well and might have said something in passing so chose to remove myself from the situation rather than cause a scene. Another HT, maybe, but not this one.

I'm glad you refrained from saying anything; really, no good can come from that, ya know? We have to have faith in the justice system and that the truth will come out and be known and there will be resolution in the end. And until then....well.... patience I guess.

momto3kids
09-15-2008, 05:50 PM
When I'm with my parents (they retired to FL) they pay for everything too. And my mother did that when she and her sister came and stayed with me for 16 days last year. Doesn't matter that I am gainfully employed and they're retired. Although they will allow me to treat sometimes, but that's a smaller % of time. My dad even less so than my mother; he pays for everything (restaurants, etc.) when I'm visiting.

So that part (mommy paying) doesn't shock me so much, having experienced it myself. Some parents still think of their grown kids as their 'babies' no matter what the reality is. My mother thinks I'm still 12 yrs old.

I totally agree when parents are visiting...my parents do the same and insist on it. But to be here almost 2 months is a different story, this is temporary residence:laughbig: IMO. I would bet she will be here thru Oct with the custody issues coming up, then if he does get the girls she will be here to settle them in as well. :furious: We could be looking at a couple more months.

SleuthyGal
09-15-2008, 05:53 PM
I totally agree when parents are visiting...my parents do the same and insist on it. But to be here almost 2 months is a different story, this is temporary residence:laughbig: IMO. I would bet she will be here thru Oct with the custody issues coming up, then if he does get the girls she will be here to settle them in as well. :furious: We could be looking at a couple more months.

True. He might be giving her a check or putting cash in her wallet...I mean we don't know...you see mom paying at the store, but he might be treating her in other ways too. Or maybe not. No way to know.

momto3kids
09-15-2008, 06:04 PM
True. He might be giving her a check or putting cash in her wallet...I mean we don't know...you see mom paying at the store, but he might be treating her in other ways too. Or maybe not. No way to know.
LOL...did you see what you wrote? :floorlaugh:
Treating her in other ways? :waitasec: Maybe he gives her an allowance like he did Nancy? :furious: Does he control everyone in his life?:confused:
I know what you mean, just picking on you!

SleuthyGal
09-15-2008, 06:09 PM
LOL...did you see what you wrote? :floorlaugh:
Treating her in other ways? :waitasec: Maybe he gives her an allowance like he did Nancy? :furious: Does he control everyone in his life?:confused:
I know what you mean, just picking on you!

HEH! Yes I did notice that as soon as I posted. And I KNEW you'd bust my chops over it too! He does seem to like to withdraw a certain amount of $$ each week...perhaps old habits persist! :rolleyes:

SleuthyGal
09-15-2008, 06:14 PM
Not that this will necessarily make you feel better M23K, but at least there is still *possibility* ahead in this case.

I mean how would you like to be a family member of one of O.J. victims? I am practically in tears anytime I see Fred or Kim Goldman on TV; I feel so bad for them. Or Robert Blake's wife's family? Can you imagine knowing that the murderer of your beloved family member was deemed NOT guilty and is walking around free as a bird?

Of course their reputations are ruined, most people want nothing to do with them, their souls are scarred forever, they're piranhas in most of polite society, people call them 'murderer' and 'killer' to their faces, and they will never ever be 'free' of the association to their crimes, but still...can you IMAGINE?

I think at some point you have to find some belief in Universal Karma and realize that such actions will be accounted for in some way/some day or else risk losing your mind.

Anderson
09-15-2008, 06:21 PM
Not that this will necessarily make you feel better M23K, but at least there is still *possibility* ahead in this case. I mean how would you like to be a family member of one of O.J. victims? I am practically in tears anytime I see Fred or Kim Goldman on TV; I feel so bad for them. Or Robert Blake's wife's family? Can you imagine knowing that the murderer of your beloved family member was deemed NOT guilty and is walking around free as a bird?

Oh course their reputations are ruined, most people want nothing to do with them, their souls are scarred forever, and they're piranhas in most of polite society, but still...can you IMAGINE? I think at some point you have to find some belief in Universal Karma and realize that such actions will be accounted for in some way/some day.

That is a really helpful way to look at it. Still hard to wait though.

SleuthyGal
09-15-2008, 06:28 PM
And...for those who are upset at the intrusion/digging into the private lives of NC's friends, remember if you will, in 2002 when 7 yr old Danielle Van Dam was taken from her home (by a neighbor) and found dead 3 weeks later, the parents 'lifestyle' was put on trial as much as the defendant's. The parents were part of a semi-occasional swinging lifestyle and they enjoyed smoking pot, drinking and a little spouse swapping at times. They were castigated by the San Diego community as well as the entire country for their behaviors. Of course those behaviors didn't have anything to do with the actual crime itself, but the inference was made many times that their behaviors somehow enticed their pedophile neighbor Westerfield into sneaking into their home in the middle of the night, abducting their daughter, driving her in his motorhome for 3 days, and eventually killing her and leaving her body about 10 mi. away for predators to feast on.

But in the end, none of the salaciousness mattered to the jury. David Allen Westerfield was connected to the victim and the crime through his timeline, DNA, fibers, kiddie porn, failed polygraph test and other things. It wasn't a 'slam-dunk' case by any means, but he was found guilty AND is now sitting on death row in San Quentin.

People CAN (and will) see through smoke screens and pay attention to the actual evidence. The key of course is that there must be evidence linking the killer to his/her victim in some way.

BirdHunter
09-15-2008, 06:32 PM
That is a really helpful way to look at it. Still hard to wait though.
Of course it is. But SG is right. Better to have hope that one day the right person will be found guilty than knowing they got off with a not guilty. Better for the DA to be ready. Which I agree that in these parts of N.C., it seems to take an extra long time. Most likely because of the type of case it is and the fact that there is no witness, no smoking gun.

ncnative
09-15-2008, 06:45 PM
Husband just got back from THE Harris Teeter. I'm gonna hafta wash those BC cooties off him.

You know, BC's lawyer probably told him he should wear the wedding band. It "makes a good appearance" after all. Hmpfh. Bet he didn't wear it when he had his affairs.

I'd be shopping somewhere else if I were BC. Bet his lawyers told him to shop there, you know, like nothing ever happened.

mahmoo
09-15-2008, 08:18 PM
I think at some point you have to find some belief in Universal Karma and realize that such actions will be accounted for in some way/some day or else risk losing your mind.

I embrace that belief 100% and it is what saves me from going completely bonkers with these crimes......and everything else going on in the world for that matter.

reddress58
09-15-2008, 08:30 PM
Husband just got back from THE Harris Teeter. I'm gonna hafta wash those BC cooties off him.

You know, BC's lawyer probably told him he should wear the wedding band. It "makes a good appearance" after all. Hmpfh. Bet he didn't wear it when he had his affairs.

I'd be shopping somewhere else if I were BC. Bet his lawyers told him to shop there, you know, like nothing ever happened.
Always wondered what kind of legal scum would represent other scum.

RaleighNC
09-16-2008, 02:58 PM
Kurtz and Blum have gone on the offensive with posting and providing video footage of the 2 HT trips, photos of BC's neck, calling it a "Cary Clique" etc.

On their website:
http://www.kurtzandblum.com/CM/Investigation/Nancy-Cooper.asp

Topsail Girl
09-16-2008, 03:08 PM
Kurtz and Blum have gone on the offensive with posting and providing video footage of the 2 HT trips, photos of BC's neck, calling it a "Cary Clique" etc.

On their website:
http://www.kurtzandblum.com/CM/Investigation/Nancy-Cooper.asp

I started a thread about this - sorry about that.

KTaylorsc
09-17-2008, 10:28 AM
Do any of you think this man would have a chance at a fair trial if arrested?

raisincharlie
09-17-2008, 10:44 AM
Do any of you think this man would have a chance at a fair trial if arrested?

Yes - 100%

Star12
09-17-2008, 11:43 AM
yes - 100%

rc, ita

jumpstreet
09-17-2008, 12:32 PM
Do any of you think this man would have a chance at a fair trial if arrested?

Everyone on WS would be filtered out by the voir dire... so yes. :)

jmflu
09-17-2008, 12:50 PM
Everyone on WS would be filtered out by the voir dire... so yes. :)


And I thought I knew French. I had to look this one up! For others of you who have no idea what JS just said, "Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."

zelmajane
09-17-2008, 12:53 PM
Newest news.

He wants the custody battle dismissed.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3560629/

fran
09-17-2008, 01:25 PM
Newest news.

He wants the custody battle dismissed.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3560629/

FWIW and IMHO, this latest filing is just for show. He already played his hand, serving all Nancy's friends first. He knows everyone expected him to do this.

I don't believe Brad wants those girls other than to 'control them' and to help 'prove he's innocent.' I mean, IF he hadn't asked for them back, EVERYONE would say he's most likely guilty. By fighting the custody, it at least gives him some facade of innocence.

Nah, he shot off all the cra* to Nancy's friends because they dared to say a bad word about him and those documents were filed for revenge. THIS most recent filing is just part of the regular old game.

Too late, the true Brad Cooper has already shown his face. :mad:

JMHO
fran

SleuthyGal
09-17-2008, 01:50 PM
Do any of you think this man would have a chance at a fair trial if arrested?

Absolutely yes!

SleuthyGal
09-17-2008, 01:52 PM
Newest news.

He wants the custody battle dismissed.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3560629/

Why didn't he fight for custody at the 7/25 hearing? I don't understand why he agreed to the plaintiffs having additional custody time. Could this motion just be for offensive posturing?

Star12
09-17-2008, 03:30 PM
Why didn't he fight for custody at the 7/25 hearing? I don't understand why he agreed to the plaintiffs having additional custody time. Could this motion just be for offensive posturing?

yes, between that and being skeered

raisincharlie
09-17-2008, 03:48 PM
Everyone on WS would be filtered out by the voir dire... so yes. :)


One of the benefits of being on WS - one has the opportunity to learn how the judicial system actually works instead of the preconceived tv presentations.

Well done !:clap:

Topsail Girl
09-17-2008, 04:02 PM
One of the benefits of being on WS - one has the opportunity to learn how the judicial system actually works instead of the preconceived tv presentations.

Well done !:clap:

This is the place I got most of my edu-macashun LOL :crazy: I actually learned how to spell voir dire and pronounce it correctly right here on this site .

SleuthyGal
09-17-2008, 04:05 PM
While my MBA came from a traditional school, I got my Ph.D. and J.D. from Google University! :wink:

raisincharlie
09-17-2008, 04:16 PM
How ironic that Brad boy did nothing but whine about Nancy costing him money while she was alive and now his lunch money is dwindling really fast and he is still whining...:bang:

Seems he likes to whine and to have his money piled up. Those days are done I think - don't make much making license plates.

jumpstreet
09-17-2008, 04:17 PM
While my MBA came from a traditional school, I got my Ph.D. and J.D. from Google University! :wink:

Uhhh... SG... given this case... care to share exactly where and when did you get your MBA... (just checking). :crazy: ;) ;)

NC_butterfly
09-17-2008, 04:33 PM
Hi all! I just registered today, but I've been reading your boards for several weeks now. I am very intrigued by the details of some of these cases - and if my circumstances allowed it, I'd go to school to study criminology - but this one in particular has me glued to your forum because I live in Lochmere. I never met Nancy personally, but had seen her out running from time to time.

It is so terribly sad to think what her family is going through and to think about her adorable little girls growing up without their mommy. I really hope they get some resolution to this case very soon. I shop at the HT and am always scanning the crowd so I won't bump into BC.

Anyway...I've enjoyed "getting to know" all of you by reading your posts...and hopefully I'll have something valuable to contribute at some point as well.

reddress58
09-17-2008, 04:37 PM
Hi all! I just registered today, but I've been reading your boards for several weeks now. I am very intrigued by the details of some of these cases - and if my circumstances allowed it, I'd go to school to study criminology - but this one in particular has me glued to your forum because I live in Lochmere. I never met Nancy personally, but had seen her out running from time to time.

It is so terribly sad to think what her family is going through and to think about her adorable little girls growing up without their mommy. I really hope they get some resolution to this case very soon. I shop at the HT and am always scanning the crowd so I won't bump into BC.

Anyway...I've enjoyed "getting to know" all of you by reading your posts...and hopefully I'll have something valuable to contribute at some point as well.
Welcome, Butterfly! We may be neighbors. Hope you will join us sometime for a meet-up to discuss the case.

jmflu
09-17-2008, 04:38 PM
Hi all! I just registered today, but I've been reading your boards for several weeks now. I am very intrigued by the details of some of these cases - and if my circumstances allowed it, I'd go to school to study criminology - but this one in particular has me glued to your forum because I live in Lochmere. I never met Nancy personally, but had seen her out running from time to time.

It is so terribly sad to think what her family is going through and to think about her adorable little girls growing up without their mommy. I really hope they get some resolution to this case very soon. I shop at the HT and am always scanning the crowd so I won't bump into BC.

Anyway...I've enjoyed "getting to know" all of you by reading your posts...and hopefully I'll have something valuable to contribute at some point as well.


Welcome! So nice to have you here!

raisincharlie
09-17-2008, 04:44 PM
Welcome NC_butterfly !

I have no doubt that at some point you will have something valuable to say. Don't be shy ! :)

Anderson
09-17-2008, 04:46 PM
Why didn't he fight for custody at the 7/25 hearing? I don't understand why he agreed to the plaintiffs having additional custody time. Could this motion just be for offensive posturing?

I still don't understand that at all.

Does anyone else remember that one of the conditions that was part of the arrangement/agreement made on J 25th is that the two parties stop publicly attacking each other??:confused:

I am almost sure that was included in one of the media reports that day and I am trying to find it. If that is case, is it possible that his recent activity has broken that agreement? I remember thinking that he was probably silent for so long because of that agreement. I could be wrong though.

raisincharlie
09-17-2008, 04:54 PM
I still don't understand that at all.

Does anyone else remember that one of the conditions that was part of the arrangement/agreement made on J 25th is that the two parties stop publicly attacking each other??:confused:

I am almost sure that was included in one of the media reports that day and I am trying to find it. If that is case, is it possible that his recent activity has broken that agreement? I remember thinking that he was probably silent for so long because of that agreement. I could be wrong though.

You are correct Anderson - it is stated in the Memorandom of Judgement from the 25th that this was not to be allowed.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/25/3282832/July_25_memorandum_of_judgment_order.pdf


Hope the link helps - if not it is posted above in the legal docs thread.

jumpstreet
09-17-2008, 05:03 PM
Is it possible that his recent activity has broken that agreement? I remember thinking that he was probably silent for so long because of that agreement. I could be wrong though.

I guess I missed where he publicly attacked the Rentz family recently...(even in the submitted subpoenas - not sure I see anything that I'd categorize as a "attack" on the plaintiffs) Maybe I missed something?

Star12
09-17-2008, 05:04 PM
You are correct Anderson - it is stated in the Memorandom of Judgement from the 25th that this was not to be allowed.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/25/3282832/July_25_memorandum_of_judgment_order.pdf


Hope the link helps - if not it is posted above in the legal docs thread.

somehow I don't think that it applies to court documents

raisincharlie
09-17-2008, 05:05 PM
somehow I don't think that it applies to court documents


I would agree. I also think the case could be made that the obvious attacks on the K & B website could be argued as being made by the lawyer and not Brad boy.

Anderson
09-17-2008, 05:27 PM
I guess I missed where he publicly attacked the Rentz family recently...(even in the submitted subpoenas - not sure I see anything that I'd categorize as a "attack" on the plaintiffs) Maybe I missed something?

I don't think "attack" was actually used in the media report that I heard, and I still have to look at the document that RC mentioned. Slander?

I agree that he has not attacked them any more than he did in the affidavits that were released prior to July 25th. These were the only public statements that BC had made at that point regarding the Rentz family. He has never talked to the media about them. So, I suppose I thought that this agreement would include more public affidavits etc. I thought, at the time, that all would have to wait for the next custody hearing before responding to documents etc. that had been made public. But, as you can tell, I am not very clear on this. As I see from RC's comments below, this may well not include legal documents.

BC has suggested in the past that NC's Mother and Krista are not physically capable of taking care of the children, and I think that they are trying to take this further by asking for medical documents etc. I agree that this is not exactly an attack, but BC and his Lawyers are certainly implying that they are not capable of taking the children. I am sure that there are other examples along the same lines.

SleuthyGal
09-17-2008, 06:14 PM
Hi all! I just registered today, {snip} I live in Lochmere. I never met Nancy personally, but had seen her out running from time to time.

WELCOME NC_Butterfly! Glad you're joining in to the discussion. I'm a Caryite too, but not in that neighborhood. I make the occasional pilgrimage to the HT too, though I'm about 5 mi. away so it's not as convenient for quick store runs. But it's always worth it. We have a nice little community here--some super smart folks!

SleuthyGal
09-17-2008, 06:18 PM
Uhhh... SG... given this case... care to share exactly where and when did you get your MBA... (just checking). :crazy: ;) ;)

I finished mine in '95. I'll pass on the other details :wink:. But it took me 5 years going part time at night while working fulltime to complete it. Was glad when that was over!

jmflu
09-17-2008, 10:02 PM
I went to the dump site for the first time today. I had driven down Holly Springs Road several times, looking at the Meadow Oaks subdivision entrance. It was almost like I viewed it as the entrance to hell or something. I never went in. I thought for some reason it was all tracts, nothing built, just eerie. I was wrong about that. The first part is a lot of very nice homes with lots of land for each. The newest part is full of McMansions, and they are building more and more back there constantly. Won't be long until they are on Nancy's court. That's what they should call it, Nancy's Court. Anyway, I had wondered if Toll Brothers had seen a drop-off in interest towards the homes back there but I guess not.

I went back to the spot and parked. Someone had just recently left a wired heart with purple flowers near the road. I wondered if it was one of her friends or one of us. I also wondered how often people went back there. An older couple was walking on the road leading up to the court and they waved.

Anyway, I saw how we could be confused about whether Nancy was left on the bank or in the water. It's not really a pond, just a little retention area it looks like.

I sure hope she wasn't still alive when he left her there.

SleuthyGal
09-17-2008, 10:47 PM
I went to the dump site for the first time today. I had driven down Holly Springs Road several times, looking at the Meadow Oaks subdivision entrance. It was almost like I viewed it as the entrance to hell or something.

I've been there twice. But never alone, which I think I need to do at some point. Both times felt very different from each other--the 2nd time was harder, emotionally. It feels so remote there to me. Did you get that same feeling?

jmflu
09-17-2008, 10:54 PM
I've been there twice. But never alone, which I think I need to do at some point. Both times felt very different from each other--the 2nd time was harder, emotionally. It feels so remote there to me. Did you get that same feeling?

No. But that may be because it probably has been built up even more since the murder occured. Houses are being built right there off the street from the court, so people were around, working. I always expected it to be so remote-feeling because I always thought there was like a mile of undeveloped land, way back in there.

But in a way, just because maybe I have seen pictures of that spot, that one spot felt isolated... it was like looking at the scene and it coming at me closer and closer, boom boom boom like on TV. I kept wondering what spot her final resting place was. It was a peaceful day and I tried to look at it that way, but underneath that I felt evil there... footprints that tracked evil to that place that have yet to be stilled...

SleuthyGal
09-17-2008, 10:59 PM
No. But that may be because it probably has been built up even more since the murder occured. Houses are being built right there off the street from the court, so people were around, working. I always expected it to be so remote-feeling because I always thought there was like a mile of undeveloped land, way back in there.

The 2 times I was there were times when no one else was around, aside from the people I went with, and no construction was occurring, so it felt very remote to me.

But in a way, just because maybe I have seen pictures of that spot, that one spot felt isolated... it was like looking at the scene and it coming at me closer and closer, boom boom boom like on TV. I kept wondering what spot her final resting place was. It was a peaceful day and I tried to look at it that way, but underneath that I felt evil there... footprints that tracked evil to that place that have yet to be stilled...

It's surreal seeing it in person...somehow it seems smaller than what you think it will look like, esp. when you're seeing aerial images from 3,000 ft up. I just got a shiver as you described your feeling of 'evil.' :eek:

jmflu
09-17-2008, 11:06 PM
Yeah, I was glad it didn't feel remote because I wasn't so keen on going to that remote location by myself.

I wonder if BC has ever gone there.

Gone BACK there, excuse me.

SleuthyGal
09-17-2008, 11:18 PM
Yeah, I was glad it didn't feel remote because I wasn't so keen on going to that remote location by myself.

I wonder if BC has ever gone there.

Gone BACK there, excuse me.

I wondered that too, but no, I don't believe he ever has or ever will.

jmflu
09-17-2008, 11:23 PM
I wondered that too, but no, I don't believe he ever has or ever will.


And that is just so opposite of a man whose wife was murdered... by someone else.

SleuthyGal
09-17-2008, 11:40 PM
And that is just so opposite of a man whose wife was murdered... by someone else.

Hmmm perhaps, I don't know, I think it depends on the person and what they can handle/or can't handle emotionally in addition to any involvement or not in a crime. I wouldn't say one way or the other since I know people in my family who could never ever handle such a thing from an emotional standpoint even if it was a friend it happened to. Alternatively, visiting is not necessarily a sign of innocence either.

jmflu
09-17-2008, 11:44 PM
Hmmm perhaps, I don't know, I think it depends on the person and what they can handle/or can't handle emotionally in addition to any involvement or not in a crime. I wouldn't say one way or the other since I know people in my family who could never ever handle such a thing. Alternatively, visiting is not necessarily a sign of innocence either.

I guess, for me, no matter how hard it was, I would want to try to feel a last connection with the person... going there would be a necessity for me...

SleuthyGal
09-17-2008, 11:49 PM
I guess, for me, no matter how hard it was, I would want to try to feel a last connection with the person... going there would be a necessity for me... I agree and it would be for me too.

Anderson
09-18-2008, 12:17 AM
I don't think "attack" was actually used in the media report that I heard, and I still have to look at the document that RC mentioned. Slander?

Okay, I believe the hand written document says this:

"None of the parties shall disparage the other/s and none of the parties shall discuss the circumstance surrounding the death of their Mother or the pending custody case."

That is the only statement that seems to fit. Now, this seems to be related to the children only, as far as I can tell. The media report that I am thinking of seemed to say that the parties could not slander each other in a public context, but I could be totally wrong. I remember that NC's father only made a very brief statement and I had thought at the time that this may be related to the conditions set out by the judge.

I noticed that BC went on at length in one of the documents about not knowing if Mr. Rentz worked for the institution that he claimed to work for(suggested a different name) or whether or not he had worked there for the time that he had stated (I haven't looked at the document that he responded to recently). Brad also questioned NC's father's experience. He said that social workers would be familiar with child care issues, but since Rentz was the director (?) of the institution in Alberta, he may not have the same skills or expertise. Of course not, but he would be very familiar with the range of issues that may arise in that context as director of the institution.

I thought that was pretty bizarre, and these statements seem to me to be disparaging remarks(which may be perfectly fine in a legal context). Is he suggesting that Rentz lied?? I don't think that is a very respectful way to treat your wife's father. That says a lot about Brad, to me.

fran
09-18-2008, 02:09 PM
I would agree. I also think the case could be made that the obvious attacks on the K & B website could be argued as being made by the lawyer and not Brad boy.

Well, it would appear Brad has an attorney with a like personality. Like Nancy's friends said, 'he's always changing the rules.'

JMHO
fran

fran
09-18-2008, 02:16 PM
I guess, for me, no matter how hard it was, I would want to try to feel a last connection with the person... going there would be a necessity for me...

See, this is why BC's statement that 'he loved Nancy,' and NOT going to any of the memorials or funeral are contradictory. He's shown absolutely NO love of Nancy since her murder. Well, he even went so far as to say a whole slew of disparging things about her.

Pretty well tells ME EXACTLY what he thought and THINKS of Nancy. :(

JMHO
fran

Star12
09-18-2008, 03:09 PM
See, this is why BC's statement that 'he loved Nancy,' and NOT going to any of the memorials or funeral are contradictory. He's shown absolutely NO love of Nancy since her murder. Well, he even went so far as to say a whole slew of disparging things about her.

Pretty well tells ME EXACTLY what he thought and THINKS of Nancy. :(

JMHO
fran

And her family and friends, as well.

Star12
09-21-2008, 02:16 PM
Tomorrow, Monday, is the hearing on the psych evaluation. Does anyone see any reason why the judge would deny it? What argument could K&B produce to block it? I see a positive decision as being in the best interests of the children.

jilly
09-21-2008, 03:30 PM
Tomorrow, Monday, is the hearing on the psych evaluation. Does anyone see any reason why the judge would deny it? What argument could K&B produce to block it? I see a positive decision as being in the best interests of the children.

Since this is related to the custody of Brad's two children. I would think the Court would want to see some substantial evidence of mental instability (ie medical records) before a psych evaluation is ordered. There's got to be some basis for making that order.

SleuthyGal
09-21-2008, 04:14 PM
Tomorrow, Monday, is the hearing on the psych evaluation. Does anyone see any reason why the judge would deny it? What argument could K&B produce to block it? I see a positive decision as being in the best interests of the children.Isn't the burden of proof on the plaintiffs? Unless they can make a case for why with evidence, I'm not sure the judge will force BC to undergo a psych exam. It all depends on what they have to offer as 'proof' at the hearing. It may be the same thing they offered to get the ex-parte motion or maybe it's something more.

Star12
09-21-2008, 05:16 PM
Isn't the burden of proof on the plaintiffs? Unless they can make a case for why with evidence, I'm not sure the judge will force BC to undergo a psych exam. It all depends on what they have to offer as 'proof' at the hearing. It may be the same thing they offered to get the ex-parte motion or maybe it's something more.


If BC protests too much, however, would it not raise suspicion that there may be some reason he does not want his psyche probed? And remember, best interests of the children is the guiding star. That would give WCFC a lot of latitude, I think. It will be an interesting tomorrow. Judge may also order plaintiffs the same 'opportunity' for psyche evals.

mahmoo
09-21-2008, 08:00 PM
Since this is related to the custody of Brad's two children. I would think the Court would want to see some substantial evidence of mental instability (ie medical records) before a psych evaluation is ordered. There's got to be some basis for making that order.

I worry so much for Katie & Bella........they have already been taken suddenly from what routines they knew, their friends, and both of their parents. I don't know if a judge can take into consideration that the only remaining parent could possibly have murder charges brought against them at any time.

To allow the girls to return to their father and then him be charged with murder resulting in them being moved YET again......I dunno. Hope the judge considers all possible angles with this custody case.

This is just my opinion....and of course, I don't know Brad Cooper but, I cannot imagine him raising & caring for two little girls....especially as young as they are.

ETA.....I wish someone from Nancy's family or one of her friends would offer a report on how the girls are doing and if they are adjusting alright........I think about those two little cuties alot.

jilly
09-21-2008, 09:13 PM
I worry so much for Katie & Bella........they have already been taken suddenly from what routines they knew, their friends, and both of their parents. I don't know if a judge can take into consideration that the only remaining parent could possibly have murder charges brought against them at any time. That crossed my mind too. I'm wondering if the Judge can take into consideration that BC has not been ruled out as a suspect.

ETA.....I wish someone from Nancy's family or one of her friends would offer a report on how the girls are doing and if they are adjusting alright........I think about those two little cuties alot.

The oldest has probably been put in a preschool and I'm sure they'll have evaluations done on them for the custody hearing in October.

Star12
09-21-2008, 11:14 PM
Since this is related to the custody of Brad's two children. I would think the Court would want to see some substantial evidence of mental instability (ie medical records) before a psych evaluation is ordered. There's got to be some basis for making that order.

Medical records are not necessary for a psych evaluation to be ordered. IIRC, it is usually done when there may be doubt as to stability, emotional or mental, or any other issues that may be of concern.

Not that there would be, necessarily, a thought that a parent would be a psychopath, or have any other serious mental or emotional condition, but concerns for fitness and appropriateness of the parent/s.

BC may be shown to be not guilty in Nancy's death, and if he is not handling her death well, it may affect the childrens emotional health, for example. The eval may show that he has some issues which could be taken care of in therapy or counseling.

In any event, a psych evaluation is not a bad thing, and basically is in everyone's' best interests.

Anderson
09-22-2008, 11:40 PM
Does anyone know if/when we will learn the outcome of the judgement regarding the mental evaluation?

Topsail Girl
09-24-2008, 03:48 PM
Couple donates bench in Cooper's honor

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3603463/

Anderson
09-24-2008, 09:46 PM
Couple donates bench in Cooper's honor

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3603463/

How wonderful!

A dedication ceremony is set for Oct. 12.

I wonder if Brad will go to this. Most likely not. It would look very good for him to go, particularly after missing a memorial service, a funeral, and a birthday memorial. I really think that attending the dedication ceremony would do far more for his public image than the website that his Lawyers have set up for him. Cheaper too.

I really believe that if he is not guilty, then he would want to go. Yes, it may be a bit uncomfortable, but . . .

jmflu
09-24-2008, 10:18 PM
How wonderful!

A dedication ceremony is set for Oct. 12.

I wonder if Brad will go to this. Most likely not. It would look very good for him to go, particularly after missing a memorial service, a funeral, and a birthday memorial. I really think that attending the dedication ceremony would do far more for his public image than the website that his Lawyers have set up for him. Cheaper too.

I really believe that if he is not guilty, then he would want to go. Yes, it may be a bit uncomfortable, but . . .

Well of course he won't go. Does he go anywhere besides HT these days??

SleuthyGal
09-24-2008, 11:14 PM
Couple donates bench in Cooper's honor

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3603463/

I forgot to comment on this earlier. This is really a lovely and simple tribute. Something that will allow everyone who passes by to take a moment, rest if they want/need, and help keep Nancy's spirit in the community. I love that idea.

jumpstreet
09-24-2008, 11:19 PM
A dedication ceremony is set for Oct. 12.

I wonder if Brad will go to this. Most likely not

Will any local WS folks be attending? If yes (and especially if he's glanced at WS even a little), then he (BC) might otherwise really want to come, but find the thought... (ahem)... somewhat disconcerting.

Seriously though... any local WS folks potentially interested in attending (depending on the particulars)?

SleuthyGal
09-24-2008, 11:33 PM
Will any local WS folks be attending? If yes (and especially if he's glanced at WS even a little), then he (BC) might otherwise really want to come, but find the thought... (ahem)... somewhat disconcerting.

Seriously though... any local WS folks potentially interested in attending (depending on the particulars)? I'm sure there would be some WS folks interested in attending (this is my assumption), depending on when and if it's something intended just for her family/friends or if it's intended to be shared with the community.

Anderson
09-25-2008, 12:33 AM
Will any local WS folks be attending? If yes (and especially if he's glanced at WS even a little), then he (BC) might otherwise really want to come, but find the thought... (ahem)... somewhat disconcerting.

I know you are joking JS, but at the same time don't you think that by not attending these memorial services, he may seem a bit more guilty? I mean if this were your significant other wouldn't you go, despite what people may think?

Either way, guilty or innocent, it is really in his best interest to go. I'm sure he won't based on his past behaviour. I can honestly say that because he has avoided these events, this has made me think that he has something to hide. Of course I could be wrong.

I know that the claim is that different people grieve in different ways etc. Funerals/memorials are important to attend, not just out of respect for the person, but also as a way to celebrate them. Every person that was part of the person's life that attends a funeral (dedication etc) stands for a different aspect of the person. This cultural practice is in place for a reason. Everyone holds different memories of the person. I think that it is incredibly selfish not to go, just because it may be disconcerting, uncomfortable etc.

Will his Mother go, since she is around? I wonder if his family went to the memorial service in Canada. If no, then why not? NC had their grandchildren, nieces etc.

JMO

Anderson
09-25-2008, 12:43 AM
Well of course he won't go. Does he go anywhere besides HT these days??

Yes, I am sure you are right. I wonder if he has been training in his spare time.

I have been thinking about this. Why doesn't BC do something lovely for his wife that he "loved very much"? He should be buying NC a bench.

Oh yes, he is very worried about money. I think his money would have been better spent on NC rather than the lawyers. Hmmmm . . . .

Anderson
09-25-2008, 01:00 AM
[QUOTE=Anderson;2732495]
"A dedication ceremony is set for Oct. 12."

I wonder if Brad will go to this. Most likely not. It would look very good for him to go, particularly after missing a memorial service, a funeral, and a birthday memorial. QUOTE]

Do you remember that there were some complaints when the birthday memorial that was held at JJ? We all wondered who could possibly complain about a birthday memorial. The owner/manager became concerned when she received the calls (and she was quite rude to one of our members as a result). It seemed so odd to complain about a birthday memorial, but it may have been quite revealing. We have recently seen that BC and his lawyers want to silence her friends. I would love to know who made those calls that night. I hope that information was collected by LE.

At least there is no opportunity to complain about the dedication. And anyway who would (but it makes about as much sense as the JJ complaints!!:waitasec:)?

It is such a wonderful tribute to Nancy.

LivinginNC
09-25-2008, 07:49 AM
Couple donates bench in Cooper's honor

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3603463/

What a wonderful tribute! Brad probably wishes he thought of it first. It would have been a very fitting memorial to Nancy where he could celebrate her life in a "private" manner. Guilty or innocent this would have been a feather in his cap. IMO

jumpstreet
09-25-2008, 08:52 AM
What a wonderful tribute! Brad probably wishes he thought of it first. It would have been a very fitting memorial to Nancy where he could celebrate her life in a "private" manner. Guilty or innocent this would have been a feather in his cap. IMO

Right... it's also my thought: If he's guilty, why would he not attend at least some of these things (if nothing else for the optics)?

If he's innocent, I also can't imagine the reasons (but there may be legitimate ones), but I especially can't imagine the reasons not to attend (at least some of these things) if he's guilty.

jmflu
09-25-2008, 09:24 AM
At least there is no opportunity to complain about the dedication. And anyway who would (but it makes about as much sense as the JJ complaints!!:waitasec:)? QUOTE FROM ANDERSON

Would you believe there are people on GOLO complaining? Because it is "public" property? Because NC was not an "official" in the community and we should be honoring a firefighter, policeman, etc?

SleuthyGal
09-25-2008, 09:43 AM
Because no public funds were used to create the bench (the materials are being anonymously donated), and there is no commercial venture associated with the dedication (some had accused JJ of trying to 'profit' from the NC Bday celebration), it should be devoid of similar controversy. Then again some like to create drama and will find any reason to do so. And I imagine if someone can get their hackles up over a park bench then they must spend much of their time feeling offended.

RaleighNC
09-25-2008, 10:03 AM
Wouldn't our parks and public areas be even more lovely if folks donated and dedicated long lasting benches, stools, flower boxes, etc in memory of loved ones? IMO - better than a headstone and a way to have a "place to go" when one is cremated.

There's always someone who will complain. Sadly.

Anderson
09-25-2008, 08:10 PM
At least there is no opportunity to complain about the dedication. And anyway who would (but it makes about as much sense as the JJ complaints!!:waitasec:)? QUOTE FROM ANDERSON

Would you believe there are people on GOLO complaining? Because it is "public" property? Because NC was not an "official" in the community and we should be honoring a firefighter, policeman, etc?

Hi JMFLU,

Wow! I went and had a look. Those people are really crazy. Have a heart!! Anyway, NC has touched people besides her friends and family. I am one of them.

In any case this is a high profile case with some interesting twists. Who knows maybe there will be a movie about her. SG, even though all of the information has not come out yet, I think that you should get started on the screenplay, so that you will have the inside track. :) I think that the web-based dimension of the case is pretty interesting in itself. You have the trolls at Golo and the lawyers' website for starters. Even Willoughby suggested that the lawyers' recent actions are unusual.

jumpstreet
09-25-2008, 09:48 PM
In any case this is a high profile case with some interesting twists. Who knows maybe there will be a movie about her. ... Even Willoughby suggested that the lawyers recent actions are unusual.

In my opinion, there's no way this case won't end up seeing some form of dramatization and/or documentary or both, at some point in the future.

Star12
09-26-2008, 12:02 AM
Wouldn't our parks and public areas be even more lovely if folks donated and dedicated long lasting benches, stools, flower boxes, etc in memory of loved ones? IMO - better than a headstone and a way to have a "place to go" when one is cremated.

There's always someone who will complain. Sadly.

Many, many people do just that. I have seen lots and lots of park benches with dedication plaques. Also some garden spots, reflection pools, and things of this nature.

When a segment of my family found the remote burial site (not in a cemetery) of our great great greats in the Smokies, we put in a bench for reflection, with dedication.

This is not unusual, and it will be a lasting contribution to the community. This is not a billboard advertising a commercial commodity or service. What a lovely, thoughtful memorial.

WHY on earth would ANYone complain about it?

Anderson
09-26-2008, 12:12 AM
In my opinion, there's no way this case won't end up seeing some form of dramatization and/or documentary or both, at some point in the future.

I agree.

Anderson
09-26-2008, 12:37 AM
Many, many people do just that. I have seen lots and lots of park benches with dedication plaques. Also some garden spots, reflection pools, and things of this nature.

When a segment of my family found the remote burial site (not in a cemetery) of our great great greats in the Smokies, we put in a bench for reflection, with dedication.

This is not unusual, and it will be a lasting contribution to the community. This is not a billboard advertising a commercial commodity or service. What a lovely, thoughtful memorial.

WHY on earth would ANYone complain about it?

I know. :confused: Park bench memorials are a very common practice and I have NEVER heard of anyone complaining about such a thing before. The people complaining on GOLO are acting as though public funds are being used, even though it is a private donation. I was joking when I suggested above that someone might complain, just because I had been reminded about the silly complaints around the birthday memorial.

I would really like to know who is complaining (about both the dedication and the JJ event), and whether or not they are at all related to the case. It doesn't seem likely, but it is so odd. :rolleyes:

There have been a lot of NC bashers posting on the web, practically since the beginning of the case. This reaction seems to be more of the same. I think this may have initially been a response to Brad's first affidavit, which I read for the first time on the same day as her funeral, and I believe that is when it was made available. I found that very odd as well. This was a young woman who had just been murdered and was clearly loved by her friends and family. Her friends responded very quickly and I think this was because they were in tune with the situation. JA turned out to be right about her concern for NC, as many of us have pointed out so many times. But some people seemed to naturally gravitate to BC's position.

ncnative
09-26-2008, 07:48 AM
Quoting Anderson: "JA turned out to be right about her concern for NC, as many of us have pointed out so many times. But some people seemed to naturally gravitate to BC's position."

BC's "position". NC's "position" is: murdered, thrown out on the ground as garbage. BC's "position"...defending himSELF, not openly grieving his "beloved" wife's death, the death of his children's mother, speaking negatively of her friend whose suspicions were spot on, calling her circle of friends a "clique"? (Well, BC's lawyers did.) And why does BC feel that he needs to do this? Because he knows he is suspect. He also knows who killed his "beloved" wife. He is not out there gathering forces to find her killer. Once she was found, he became a recluse. He was not at her memorials. His children will figure it all out when the time comes.

I hope RKAB is called to be a character witness if BC ever gets to trial. (Yeah, I know, RKAB. It's not what you want, but it's what you experienced.)

Meanwhile, BC is holed up in his house all to himself with every blind closed in a dark house. Mold and mildew grow without sunlight. I see his house several times a day, so I know what I am talking about. Talk about "private person who grieves in his own private way". Grieves for what? Himself.

MCDRAW
09-26-2008, 10:02 AM
Quoting Anderson: "JA turned out to be right about her concern for NC, as many of us have pointed out so many times. But some people seemed to naturally gravitate to BC's position."

BC's "position". NC's "position" is: murdered, thrown out on the ground as garbage. BC's "position"...defending himSELF, not openly grieving his "beloved" wife's death, the death of his children's mother, speaking negatively of her friend whose suspicions were spot on, calling her circle of friends a "clique"? (Well, BC's lawyers did.) And why does BC feel that he needs to do this? Because he knows he is suspect. He also knows who killed his "beloved" wife. He is not out there gathering forces to find her killer. Once she was found, he became a recluse. He was not at her memorials. His children will figure it all out when the time comes.

I hope RKAB is called to be a character witness if BC ever gets to trial. (Yeah, I know, RKAB. It's not what you want, but it's what you experienced.)

Meanwhile, BC is holed up in his house all to himself with every blind closed in a dark house. Mold and mildew grow without sunlight. I see his house several times a day, so I know what I am talking about. Talk about "private person who grieves in his own private way". Grieves for what? Himself.


When I grieve I just lay in the bed. If I didn't have Children I probably would never have gotten out of bed. I didn't skip the funeral because it never occured to me. But My husbands Uncles didn't go to their Mother's funeral. They said they couldn't handle it. Before that I didn't even know that was an option. My Dad died six years ago and one of my brothers is just starting to grieve. One hasn't even started yet. They just pretended it didn't happen. Everyone does grieve differently and at their own time.

jumpstreet
09-26-2008, 11:11 AM
...My husbands Uncles didn't go to their Mother's funeral. They said they couldn't handle it. [...] My Dad died six years ago and one of my brothers is just starting to grieve. One hasn't even started yet. Everyone does grieve differently and at their own time.

Agreed. Which is why I mentioned before... if he's guilty, I don't see why he wouldn't have attended (at least some of) these things [ if nothing else for the optics ]. If he's innocent, it still would make some sense to attend of course (for the same reason innocent people go to memorials/services/funerals all the time)... but as you mention, there's perfectly valid reasons why innocent people don't attend these things all the time.

If he's guilty though, (and crafty/cunning enough to plan alibi phone-calls, and a couple of trips to HT to cover his tracks), why not attend at least some of these things?

Anderson
09-26-2008, 12:37 PM
Agreed. Which is why I mentioned before... if he's guilty, I don't see why he wouldn't have attended (at least some of) these things [ if nothing else for the optics ]. If he's innocent, it still would make some sense to attend of course (for the same reason innocent people go to memorials/services/funerals all the time)... but as you mention, there's perfectly valid reasons why innocent people don't attend these things all the time.

If he's guilty though, (and crafty/cunning enough to plan alibi phone-calls, and a couple of trips to HT to cover his tracks), why not attend at least some of these things?

Yes, JS, I think you are right in your logic. But I also think that you left out one option. If he is guilty, then he may have been ashamed to attend these events. Shame is much different than guilt. Just wanted to cover all the bases.:)

Albert
09-26-2008, 01:24 PM
Monday morning quarterbacks!!!!! It is very easy to say what "I" would do in any given situation, however what "I" would actually do if that situation occurred is another thing. Imagine for a moment that BC is not guilty. Imagine now for a moment that you are BC. Would you attend any public service knowing that you are entering a very hostile environment?

I am not proclaiming either guilt or innocence on behalf of BC. However I will proclaim that there are many on this list that feel they have a right to JUDGE someone else's actions.

There are those that keep asking for an arrest. Are these same people aware of double jeopardy? This case will eventually be solved but it may not be quick enough for our impatient society. The case will not be solved on WS nor in the press. Let the LE and DA handle this case as they are the professionals and they all share the same goal of catching a killer. Let's try to refrain from judging any actions till such time that our justice system has run it due course. Speculating on what "I" would do, what "I" would say or what "I" would have done is not relevant as this is simply "Monday morning quarterbacking"

Anderson
09-26-2008, 01:56 PM
Monday morning quarterbacks!!!!! It is very easy to say what "I" would do in any given situation, however what "I" would actually do if that situation occurred is another thing. Imagine for a moment that BC is not guilty. Imagine now for a moment that you are BC. Would you attend any public service knowing that you are entering a very hostile environment?

Hi Albert,

First of all welcome to websleuths! !:)

I think that most here are aware that this is a website and that BC can not be convicted or determined guilty here. Please don't feel offended by the conversation. It is simply that, a conversation, and there is room for all opinions!

With all due respect, I think you are also speculating on what BC may have done: "Imagine for a moment that BC is not guilty. Imagine now for a moment that you are BC. Would you attend any public service knowing that you are entering a very hostile environment?"

Yes, that is one scenario, and that may be true. But there are also others . . .

SleuthyGal
09-26-2008, 04:26 PM
Welcome to Websleuths, Albert!

All opinions are welcome, so pull up a virtual chair if you will.

As for the "Monday morning quarterbacking," the granite bench dedication has not yet happened so there is nothing to quarterback there.

Imagine now for a moment that you are BC. Would you attend any public service knowing that you are entering a very hostile environment?

Well you asked the question and I think by answering this very question that will make me a "Monday morning quarterback" by your definition. :wink:

However, since you asked, no I would not want to attend any event in which I felt (or knew) would be a hostile environment for me; that would be uncomfortable. I could and would do it in certain cases and deal with my own discomfort, especially if it was to support a loved one, and even though it would be difficult.

I hate to point this out but since no one has I will: it's also possible that an individual is absolutely innocent of a crime when the intimate partner is murdered AND the remaining spouse isn't sorry that their partner/spouse is dead. Uncaring and emotionally heinous? Yes/perhaps. But it's possible to be innocent of a crime AND devoid of grief in such a situation. I don't believe that is the case in the Cooper situation, but I wanted to point it out because those two things can both coexist and be true.

jmflu
09-26-2008, 04:55 PM
certain[/I] cases and deal with my own discomfort, especially if it was to support a loved one, and even though it would be difficult.

I'd just like to add that BC had no reason to feel he was in a hostile environment RIGHT OFF THE BAT. It was with time, and his lack of apparent concern, that many people began to feel hostile!

jumpstreet
09-26-2008, 05:05 PM
Bottom line (to me) is that him attending (or not attending) any of the memorials shouldn't necessarily make one feel that he is more (or less) likely to be guilty. Anyone disagree with this? {ducks}

Seems that some maybe translate/infer that him not attending as ding on the 'hinky meter'. That shouldn't be the case. Based on what little we know about the case, it should basically be a 'no-op'. (in my opinion).

ncnative
09-26-2008, 05:33 PM
I don't see Mom here as much as she used to be. Today I felt like Mom because I passed BC in his white BMW, not once but twice. Once when he was turning onto Lochmere Dr., again about an hour and a half later turning from Cary Pkwy. onto Tryon toward where...maybe THE HT. Of course he was wearing sunglasses, even though it had been raining and was very cloudy.

I have been very busy today as usual, but haven't listened to any news. I suppose nothing has happened in the BC case, nor the MY case as far as making it public goes:confused:?

Anderson
09-26-2008, 05:45 PM
Bottom line (to me) is that him attending (or not attending) any of the memorials shouldn't necessarily make one feel that he is more (or less) likely to be guilty. Anyone disagree with this? {ducks}

Seems that some maybe translate/infer that him not attending as ding on the 'hinky meter'. That shouldn't be the case. Based on what little we know about the case, it should basically be a 'no-op'. (in my opinion).

As you must know JS, I certainly respect your rational approach. I agree that from a logical/legal standpoint, it doesn't make sense to say that he is probably guilty because he didn't attend these events.

However, from my point of view, the fact that he did not attend these events (in combination with many other things), does raise my suspicions of BC. As you can see from my posts above, I do have strong opinions about this. But, I understand that they are just my opinions.

'Hinky' is a new word for me. I have become acquainted with it through websleuths. It appears to be a slang word for suspicious.

Here is the merriam webster definition:

"1slang : nervous , jittery
2slang : suspicious"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hinky

Here is another definition:

"strange: unusual in a way that is hard to describe
something a little hinky in his behavior"
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_701706552/hinky.html

This is the sort of thing that Columbo style detectives may have responded to and then found more substantial evidence to support their case. 'Hinky' seems to be subjective, rather than rational. So, I do think that his behaviour regarding memorial events puts a ding on the hinky meter for me!:rolleyes:

But there is no need to duck!!:)

jumpstreet
09-26-2008, 05:54 PM
This is the sort of thing that Columbo style detectives may have responded to and then found more substantial evidence to support their case. 'Hinky' seems to be subjective, rather than rational. So, I do think that his behaviour regarding memorial events puts a ding on the hinky meter for me!:rolleyes:

But there is no need to duck!!:)

Thanks Anderson - and fair enough! Like you said, it's all subjective for now, and all we can do is roll up everything into any opinions we happen to form.

I don't (personally) read a whole lot into him not attending (if anything it makes me feel like he may be less guilty [ per my earlier logic - which of course may very well be quite flawed! ], but that's just me ]

PS: Hinky was a new one for me too... :)

ncnative
09-26-2008, 05:56 PM
Monday morning quarterbacks!!!!! It is very easy to say what "I" would do in any given situation, however what "I" would actually do if that situation occurred is another thing. Imagine for a moment that BC is not guilty. Imagine now for a moment that you are BC. Would you attend any public service knowing that you are entering a very hostile environment?

I am not proclaiming either guilt or innocence on behalf of BC. However I will proclaim that there are many on this list that feel they have a right to JUDGE someone else's actions.

There are those that keep asking for an arrest. Are these same people aware of double jeopardy? This case will eventually be solved but it may not be quick enough for our impatient society. The case will not be solved on WS nor in the press. Let the LE and DA handle this case as they are the professionals and they all share the same goal of catching a killer. Let's try to refrain from judging any actions till such time that our justice system has run it due course. Speculating on what "I" would do, what "I" would say or what "I" would have done is not relevant as this is simply "Monday morning quarterbacking"

Albert: You said "...imagine for a moment that BC is not guilty..." Have you judged that none of us have imagined that? Well, you would be wrong.

"However I will proclaim that there are many on the list that feel they have a right to JUDGE someone else's actions." You proclaim? We have a right to discuss the case, make our own opinions, compare notes, disagree and participate in Websleuths. Some are very opinionated one way or the other, some are on the fence, it varies and changes. Your use of the word JUDGE :gavel: comes across as a bit pedantic and judgmental, (fingerwagging?) :nono:as to how you think some of us are. That's fine, but so is the fact that others have OPINIONS and carry no gavels. JMHO

raisincharlie
09-26-2008, 06:01 PM
Bottom line (to me) is that him attending (or not attending) any of the memorials shouldn't necessarily make one feel that he is more (or less) likely to be guilty. Anyone disagree with this? {ducks}

Seems that some maybe translate/infer that him not attending as ding on the 'hinky meter'. That shouldn't be the case. Based on what little we know about the case, it should basically be a 'no-op'. (in my opinion).

Alone, the fact that he did not attend memorials etc means little to me. However, when keeping that thought in mind while reading his affidavits, makes it relatively easy to ring up three or four dings on the hinky meter easily. :crazy: Bitter, self absorbed man.

Anderson
09-26-2008, 06:01 PM
PS: Hinky was a new one for me too... :)

Glad that I am not the only one!!:crazy:

Anderson
09-26-2008, 06:07 PM
Alone, the fact that he did not attend memorials etc means little to me. However, when keeping that thought in mind while reading his affidavits, makes it relatively easy to ring up three or four dings on the hinky meter easily. :crazy: Bitter, self absorbed man.

Well said. The sum total of his actions needs to be taken into account.

Topsail Girl
09-26-2008, 06:13 PM
Anderson and JS - everyone has a hinky meter. Some people just don't pay it no mind.

Anderson
09-26-2008, 06:20 PM
Anderson and JS - everyone has a hinky meter. Some people just don't pay it no mind.

I wonder if LE responds to their hinky meters. They must, don't you think? Even though they will then have to find material evidence.

Anderson
09-26-2008, 07:09 PM
I don't see Mom here as much as she used to be. Today I felt like Mom because I passed BC in his white BMW, not once but twice. Once when he was turning onto Lochmere Dr., again about an hour and a half later turning from Cary Pkwy. onto Tryon toward where...maybe THE HT. Of course he was wearing sunglasses, even though it had been raining and was very cloudy.

I have been very busy today as usual, but haven't listened to any news. I suppose nothing has happened in the BC case, nor the MY case as far as making it public goes:confused:?

Yes, I hope Mom is okay. I imagine you checked the other thread where there is some discussion on the hearing. I believe that is the only thing that is new. Perhaps we will have some news next week. One of the items that is scheduled for the hearing is related to the autopsy report. I don't know if anything will be public.

raisincharlie
09-26-2008, 07:11 PM
I wonder if LE responds to their hinky meters. They must, don't you think? Even though they will then have to find material evidence.

Of course they do.

SleuthyGal
09-26-2008, 07:19 PM
Yes, I hope Mom is okay.

She's fine; heard from her yesterday or so. She's gotten involved in learning about an older case -- the Anna Waters one, which she told me is also here on WS.

SleuthyGal
09-26-2008, 07:20 PM
I wonder if LE responds to their hinky meters. They must, don't you think? yes, it's called your intuition or that 'gut feeling.' We all have it to one extent or another.

Anderson
09-26-2008, 07:37 PM
Of course they do.

Thanks RC and SG for confirming what seems to be an obvious point. I think that it is helpful to have the usefulness of this approach spelled out on the board.

I really think that the article "The Post-Columbo Era: How the courts killed good detective work - how laws limit methods of criminal investigation," posted by SG in the O/T thread is worth reading. I think that the hinky-meter should play a role in solving crimes. Laws that limit the use of intuition (or as the article puts it, "police are not allowed to think") in police work would seem to keep criminals on the street.

Here are some quotes from the article:

"The only thing that keeps the wheels of justice turning is that most people don't know this. 'People only talk to the police because they think it will look suspicious if they don't,' says an experienced Manhattan assistant district attorney. 'What they don't realize is that the police aren't allowed to draw that negative inference.'"

"Since that moment [Supreme Court reforms in the 60s], the main strategy of every defense attorney has become to "put the state on trial" by challenging investigative procedures. As a result, absurdities have prevailed. Warrants were voided because of misspellings and typographical errors. Purely voluntary confessions recorded on videotape were thrown out when defense attorneys said their client 'couldn't have possibly understood his rights or else he wouldn't have admitted to this crime.'

Now something even worse has happened. District attorneys and police departments have become very good at abiding by the new rules; procedural mistakes are rare, and D.A.'s are very circumspect in asking for search warrants. There's only one problem: Now that the police are abiding by the letter of the Supreme Court directives, there are more and more unsolved crimes."

"The real problem is that the police are not allowed to draw any negative inference from this refusal to answer questions. In other words, the police aren't allowed to think- and that makes a crucial difference when it comes to asking for search warrants. The Fourth Amendment says that 'no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.' What constitutes probable cause? It can't be a hunch.."

Now, I am not certain how this legal context has influenced this case. BC answered questions and cooperated with police, so he certainly didn't want to look suspicious. Search warrants were issued, so there must have been a very good reason for them. However, I gather that LE would be limited in their investigation by this legal environment in some ways. Anyway, food for thought.

Anderson
09-26-2008, 07:39 PM
She's fine; heard from her yesterday or so. She's gotten involved in learning about an older case -- the Anna Waters one, which she told me is also here on WS.

Good to know. :)

Albert
09-26-2008, 08:38 PM
Albert: You said "...imagine for a moment that BC is not guilty..." Have you judged that none of us have imagined that? Well, you would be wrong.

"However I will proclaim that there are many on the list that feel they have a right to JUDGE someone else's actions." You proclaim? Your use of the word JUDGE :gavel: comes across as a bit pedantic and judgmental, (fingerwagging?) :nono:as to how you think some of us are. That's fine, but so is the fact that others have OPINIONS and carry no gavels. JMHO

Sorry for offending, ncnative. I was only trying to make a simple point. It is easy to say what you will do, however when faced with that reality will your actions be what you thought? Will you charge forward while bullets are aimed at you or will your turn and run? I am not insulted by being labeled pedantic as my wordsmith certainly does not match yours. And yes, it does appear that others are claiming BC is guilty and pointing to his lack of public appearance during memorial services as a telling sign.

Anderson
09-26-2008, 08:46 PM
And yes, it does appear that others are claiming BC is guilty and pointing to his lack of public appearance during memorial services as a telling sign.

Yes (but in combination with the case-related affidavits etc), I suppose that we all have a different hinky meter (see above)!:) I should also point out that I would not call him guilty in a legal sense. But I do have my suspicions.

IMO

jumpstreet
09-26-2008, 08:47 PM
And yes, it does appear that others are claiming BC is guilty and pointing to his lack of public appearance during memorial services as a telling sign.

Hmmm... not so sure about this one Albert. I think your point is fair, in that, just because we think we might behave in a certain way, doesn't mean when faced with that situation we necessarily will. That much is fair.

However, on the board, at least based on the recent related posts on this topic, it seems like most are factoring in the lack of appearance on BC's part, along with all the other information at their disposal in the case, and using that to form their (current) opinions. I'm not sure I've seen anyone here say that they think he's definitely guilty, based strictly on his lack of appearance at the various memorials.

I for one (using my own silly logic), think that his lack of appearance actually points to him being somewhat less guilty. [ If I'm guilty (and crafty/shameless enough to stage phone calls, and early morning trips to the HT), then I take no chances with the PR, and I attend at least some of the memorials, just to manage perception. If I'm innocent, maybe I don't hesitate as much to opt out due to being uncomfortable, etc ]

Even with the above said, I'm not concluding he's definitely innocent... it's just one factor (one of many).

CyberPro
09-27-2008, 12:30 AM
Alone, the fact that he did not attend memorials etc means little to me. However, when keeping that thought in mind while reading his affidavits, makes it relatively easy to ring up three or four dings on the hinky meter easily. :crazy: Bitter, self absorbed man.

{bolding is mine}

RC,

I am not a shrink, nor do I play one on TV, but in your opinion, would you say this level of bitterness and self-absorbsion rises to the level of NPD, or perhaps a sociopathic level?

Sure, there is no law that says you have to attend memorial services of your murdered family member, it does not automatically mean you are guilty. You do not have to attend public memorials, private memorials, nor let anyone see that you even remember the person.

There is also no law that says you cannot release affidavits besmirching the life of your recently murdered spouse, who is the mother of your children. There is no law that says you cannot also state in your affidavit slights on the victim's moral standards, selection of friends and level of involvement in household decision making. None of these things are against the law.

BUT....

We are humans, not robots. While different people have different levels of emotional reaction, lack of reaction or delayed reaction. We, as humans, pick up on the apparent emotions of others and empathize with them to one degree or another. We reflect on how we would be likely to react, if we were in the same situation, and right or wrong, we make judgements and develop impressions of the person based upon how we would react under the same circumstances. If there is a large gap between how we believe we would react and how the other person is reacting, we can ask ourselves if we are missing any important information, and if we believe we have an accurate picture we form an opinion if the reaction we are seeing jells with how a normal, rational, human should react. If we percieve that person is NOT reacting like we believe they should be, we become suspicious.

There, I think I just defined the Hinky Meter Input Source.

It applies to real life, but if you read much fiction it comes into play there too. I picked up a book a couple of years ago at the airport to read on a trip, and vowed to never read another book by this well-known author, because the characters she had in the book did not react in the way I have ever seen a human react. It was absurd.

CyberPro