April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[otto]

Yes, the divorce was finalized in 2001. The separation occurred before that though.

Divorce with property and children takes about 2 years. If Nancy was seeing him before she moved to NC, then it's a bit of a tight timeline to suggest that he was single when they were dating.

 

[Towhee]

SNIPPED ... Honestly, my response is we must also have the ability to trust the instincts of jurors and trust their ability to weigh the evidence. I have been amazed at the seriousness and logic and adherence to jury instructions that members of the juries on which I served have approached the task of looking at all the evidence and testimony.
...

While I agree with your post in general, I have to say that my experience on a jury only served to scare the hell out of me. Some people have no sense of logic, rationale, argument, or ability to understand what was testified to.

As a juror, I have been approached by other jurors during breaks and asked to explain what an 'objection' means, what the judge means when he says 'sustained' or 'over-ruled', and I could go on...

Bottom line, I don't EVER want to put myself, or find myself, in the position of being a defendant in a criminal case. hoh:

 

[cody100]

Divorce with property and children takes about 2 years. If Nancy was seeing him before she moved to NC, then it's a bit of a tight timeline to suggest that he was single when they were dating.

I thought she quit seeing him to start seeing BC. I may not be correct, but I think that is right.

 

[Cheyenne130]

And the former friend that testified Thursday revealed that Nancy used her as an alibi, which to me means that Nancy sometimes told her husband she was doing one thing when in fact she was doing something else.

I did not find that witness very credible in particular when she mentioned that the friendship broke off because she was uncomfortable being used as an alibi. I noticed that the defense did not ask her to explain what she meant by that. It was dropped quickly.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The prosecution didn't attack the validity of the testimony given by JW, they attacked the person. Indeed, it was to place his credibility into question, but it was a bit of a dirty move, IMO. His professionalism was attacked on several levels: number of jobs in 10 years, pictures that he removed from a facebook page, thoughts on conspiracy theories on a personal page. They couldn't say anything about his technical experience or testimony.

The prosecution did the same thing with the child psychologist friend by implying that she changed her testimony, and attempting to trick her into giving a professional opinion when she was testifying as a friend. They couldn't do anything about her testimony, so they attempted to give the jury the impression that she was lying. That's also an underhanded or dirty move on behalf of the prosecution.

The testimony stood up to cross examination no problem, so the prosecution attacked the witness.

The defense did the exact same thing with a number of witnesses.

 

[kljohnson0458]

I can't wait till Monday so I can get off this fence.

O/T anyone watching the Casey Anthony fiasco?

 

[WolfpackWoman]

I thought she quit seeing him to start seeing BC. I may not be correct, but I think that is right.

In BC's deposition he said he later found out that NC was seeing them both at the same time, because she left the morning after their first date to see BW for breakfast. That was in 1998 I believe.

ETA: This post is not meant to slam NC. I don't mean to imply that she was "cheating" on Brad, because I have no personal or inferred knowledge of the exclusivity of their relationship at that point.

 

[johnfear]

Here's where the Brad is Innocent folk need to make a decision.

First you have people seeing a runner they thought was Nancy juxtaposed with some random van(s) seen in the area. Implying? Implying Nancy was abducted from the public streets of Cary by some attacker, and this was a random attack. Forget the victim had no defensive wounds let's just go with random attacker, maybe with access to a van of some color.

Next you have someone who had enough knowledge to know something about the murder, where the victim was found, enough details to know or reasonably believe that a changed timestamp on a secure CSCO laptop would nail Brad, but good. Does this person bother to plant any physical evidence connecting Brad Cooper to his wife's murder? No they don't. They just somehow 'hack' into an IBM laptop that is password protected and 'plant' something. This does not imply a random perp, does it?

Unless you believe that both a random perp AND someone else conspired to kill Nancy and pin the murder on Brad, you need to go with one or the other.

So which is it?

- Random attacker?

- Someone who knew Nancy?

- Someone who knew Nancy and had skillzzz to hack into Brad's computer?

Ask the Cary Police. They should have thought to formulate SOMETHING that could have served as a decent investigation. (Not to satisfy the naysayers, but definitely to satisfy their own reputation as LE and need for Justice for NC and her family).

Or WCSO, or the RPD. (Someone was saying that the JN case has nothing to do with this....but here's something funny. Her HUSBAND matched the composite and the physical description of the "POI" in the case, except for the race).

I just realized we have about 1 of these every 18 months that gets hotly debated. (DV homicides) We actually have way more than that, but it's strange to me that it seems to rotate around the triangle.

Luckily, the next two big ones really have no debate. (JY and RA)

This one though is a wash.

 

[cody100]

I did not find that witness very credible in particular when she mentioned that the friendship broke off because she was uncomfortable being used as an alibi. I noticed that the defense did not ask her to explain what she meant by that. It was dropped quickly.

I actually thought she broke it off with NC because she did not want to be used as an alibi. She did have some strange mannerisms but I attributed that to being nervous.

 

[gracielee]

Yes, that is the only evidence they had. How did they know he was lying? Because JA/HP said so?

That cetainly isn't my interpretation of the truth, so we'll have to agree to disagree. They knew he was lying because he back-tracked, *he* changed his story, after saying 'they were working on a reconciliation'.

 

[LyndyLoo]

While I agree with your post in general, I have to say that my experience on a jury only served to scare the hell out of me. Some people have no sense of logic, rationale, argument, or ability to understand what was testified to.

As a juror, I have been approached by other jurors during breaks and asked to explain what an 'objection' means, what the judge means when he says 'sustained' or 'over-ruled', and I could go on...

Bottom line, I don't EVER want to put myself, or find myself, in the position of being a defendant in a criminal case. hoh:

Not to denagrade the jury system..However, all defendents are at the mercy of common sense..and given your scenerio..I have to say..Thats maybe why a good closing arguement by the pros and def. can ring that bell for some??..

Some people need to be spoon fed and others have personal life experiences to bring to the table..It will be interesting to see what the Jury requests as exhibits, what questions they have and how long it will take to deliberate??Going to trial for defendent is really a cra$$ shoot..I do not know why they ask for just a Judge..But anyway, Some trials just seem mind boggling and ther seem so clear and concise...COurse thats my particular brain and life experiences coming thru..LOL

 

[Madeleine74]

Ask the Cary Police. They should have thought to formulate SOMETHING that could have served as a decent investigation.

The Cary Police testified to who their investigation led them to and what facts, info, and evidence led them there. We don't have to ask them--they told us over the last 5 weeks.

I am saying those who think or believe Brad is factually innocent need to make a decision on who done it and whether it was a random attacker or someone known to Nancy.

 

[gracielee]

I can't wait till Monday so I can get off this fence.

O/T anyone watching the Casey Anthony fiasco?

Just bits and pieces. I think it will probably run around the same time as the Jason Young trial, and I have far more interest in the Young trial than Casey Anthony. I do wonder who the heck is Caylee's bio father though.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I am not suggesting that Nancy did this (and don't think that she did), but as something of a public service announcement, I'll point out that you can't really tell that a spouse is having an affair from phone records. Why? One of the common tools of the person having an affair is a second "secret" cell phone that their spouse does not know about. Often it is done with prepaid phones (Tracfone, etc) because they require no contracts and the minutes can be purchased with cash. So, no records.

Ohhh Dear..You know entirely too much about this stuff :floorlaugh:

Given Nancy had a phone and no cash since she came home from her VAKA with her family..I doubt she had a throwaway phone..LOL..Maybe she should have had to keep Brad out of her business....Int heinsight wonderful??

Remember she had no credit cards, no bank accts and relied 100% on whatever Brad gave her...Doubt very much she had a throwaway phone to connect with a mystery lover..She was far too busy being a Mom..IMO

 

[Cheyenne130]

I actually thought she broke it off with NC because she did not want to be used as an alibi. She did have some strange mannerisms but I attributed that to being nervous.

She did use those words but the way she said it and the body language that went with it didn't match up to what she was saying. The defense did not pursue it so it was just left hanging out there. I just didn't believe that part of her testimony. I do believe that Nancy was talking to someone while they were on that trip. Once back in North Carolina, what would Nancy have needed an alibi for? That is the part that made zero sense.

 

[cody100]

Not to denagrade the jury system..However, all defendents are at the mercy of common sense..and given your scenerio..I have to say..Thats maybe why a good closing arguement by the pros and def. can ring that bell for some??..

Some people need to be spoon fed and others have personal life experiences to bring to the table..It will be interesting to see what the Jury requests as exhibits, what questions they have and how long it will take to deliberate??Going to trial for defendent is really a cra$$ shoot..I do not know why they ask for just a Judge..But anyway, Some trials just seem mind boggling and ther seem so clear and concise...COurse thats my particular brain and life experiences coming thru..LOL

I think this has been a particularly difficult trial to follow with a lot of very technical information. As you said, it is difficult to predict what the end result will be. Again, without technical computer information guru's on the jury, I wonder if they might disregard that portion and go to common sense. JMOO

 

[gracielee]

In BC's deposition he said he later found out that NC was seeing them both at the same time, because she left the morning after their first date to see BW for breakfast. That was in 1998 I believe.

ETA: This post is not meant to slam NC. I don't mean to imply that she was "cheating" on Brad, because I have no personal or inferred knowledge of the exclusivity of their relationship at that point.

After one date? What the heck kind of exclusivity does one have after ONE date? I heard that in Brad's deposition and was taken aback by it then. One date and he calls it 'cheating' to have breakfast with someone else?

 

[borndem]

Not so sure she was caboodling with past boyfriends..but we do know she was trying to make arrangements for a move to Oakville Ontario to be close to her sister, and also looking for a job...It wouldnt be nefarious to reach out to past friends to network to get that kind of information...Look what they brought out in Brads depo about him connected with past girlfriend..and as it turned out was for a referral to some psychologist or something like that...Thats what people do when attempting to make changes in their life..they reach out to past friendships to get reconnected..

Nothing more and nothing less IMO

I agree -- at that (this) time in her life, she had far too much else going on than thinking about or taking time for caboodling. She was thinking of far more important things -- her two daughters, passports, no money, living in the same house with BC, how to get to Canada, a car, her family worrying about her, a job when she gets back home, cleaning the house, allowance, gas, etc., etc., etc. Making connections, yes, but not the sexual kind. Not now...

 

[otto]

In BC's deposition he said he later found out that NC was seeing them both at the same time, because she left the morning after their first date to see BW for breakfast. That was in 1998 I believe.

ETA: This post is not meant to slam NC. I don't mean to imply that she was "cheating" on Brad, because I have no personal or inferred knowledge of the exclusivity of their relationship at that point.

I don't like to write this, but I think it's rather obvious that NC didn't take marriage vows seriuosly. Neither did Brad, for that matter. Based on their pre-marriage history, Brad and Nancy should have known that it would be a problem in the marriage. Once it became an obvious problem, they should have put their cards on the table and dealt with it rather than carry on with the facade of a marriage.

 

[LyndyLoo]

She did use those words but the way she said it and the body language that went with it didn't match up to what she was saying. The defense did not pursue it so it was just left hanging out there. I just didn't believe that part of her testimony. I do believe that Nancy was talking to someone while they were on that trip. Once back in North Carolina, what would Nancy have needed an alibi for? That is the part that made zero sense.

I too wonder how /why she would feel whatever she thought or knew back 7 years ago to be relevant?? and she called Kurtz and Co..not the LE??..I would ROFLMAO if in rebuttal> they brought her x-husband on the stand to indicate her true agenda...She was enjoying her experience far too much:waitasec:..and only wonder how much she embellished..common term used by Defense Team!! :floorlaugh: