April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[momof7]

I would not call a 4 year old an accomplice. I know that you have seen it stated many times that at the age of four, a child can call a phone number. Since there was a 4 year old in the house, there is no way of knowing if Nancy was there to make that call or if the child was directed to call. And before you say that it would be too risky to involve a 4 year old, it is much riskier to commit murder. MOO

I do think that if LE had an interview with the 4 yo, depending on her personality and maturity would likely have been able to say 'something' ie. I woke up, noone was home, or I answered the phone. Or even, 'my mom was sick' My grandbabies are all 4...one very precosious, one smart as whip, nothing gets by him and the other willing to tell you everything and anything that goes on in her house and usually it is not the correct version, just a 4 yo verson. I really don't think she answered the phone. I do think she saw her mother in running clothes, but honestly..she is 4 time is a nonconcept. 4 weeks ago could be yesterday for some. Again it would depend on the child.

I don't think she had anything of value or at least anything that wouldn't come into question. I honestly don't believe she saw or heard anything from that day/morning. I have waivered back and forth in what I believe *probably* happened that morning. I am more of the mind that BC stating that he and NC were up with one of the children at 4 am is probably closer to when the events occured. I don't think they were up with the children.

Kelly

 

[unc70]

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.

NC was continuing to see this man once she was back in North Carolina. That was why she needed an alibi. Makes perfect sense to me. The person NC was talking to one the phone was not on the trip. (At least there was no testimony to that.) The two married couples were on that particular trip.

Once they were back in NC, apparently NC continue to see this person. Maybe the same person she was with at Krista's wedding.

If anyone is having trouble keeping up, I will try to speak slowly. After all, I am Southern.

 

[FullDisclosure]

Thanks for clarifying. If I had to vote at this point, I would hesitantly fall in your first category.

That is where I fall also, btw.

 

[sunshine05]

Who would ever suggest that the defense is planting posters on message boards? I think that is beyond far fetched. I think they have enough credibility in themselves to have to resort to such tactics.

I agree. I think it's not a stretch that they skim through sites like this from time to time but would not expect them to place people on message boards.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The state will have to make that suggestion then in closing and not assume the jury is going to make that leap.

I think that would blow away a huge chunk of their case because they put so much stock in explaining all the ways it could have been done, routers, fxo ports, experts from Cisco, etc. I think the jury would fine it "weak" if they all of a sudden were to say "or maybe the 4 year old made that call". Don't you?

No, I don't think they need to make that suggestion in closing and I don't think it's a huge leap. He very well may have set up the call. He had the knowledge and access to the equipment. The defense has to rely on the jury to believe that Nancy made that call. If they believe that it could have been done another way, the phone call will be dismissed as non evidence. So we're back to did she leave the house to go jogging that day or not?

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Of course not. But the jury can believe he's guilty and yet the state didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That alone gets a not guilty verdict, which does not mean, btw, the person is factually innocent.

There are posters here who have proclaimed that Brad Cooper is 100% innocent. I am asking which theory they subscribe to in order to determine factual innocence (versus those who don't know if he is or think maybe he isn't but they aren't past reasonable doubt).

I am not stating that I think he is 100% innocent. I don't know. But, I do know that the state has not provided enough evidence to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt to send someone to jail for the rest of their life. The prosecution has to convince the jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt - which at this point I feel BC should be deemed not guilty

 

[SleuthSayer]

Who would ever suggest that the defense is planting posters on message boards? I think that is beyond far fetched. I think they have enough credibility in themselves to have to resort to such tactics.

It was suggested a few pages back and has been suggested several times before.

 

[less0305]

You didn't ask my opinion, but i say yes! In fact, I have wondered if that was topic of fights in the last week. Her saying if he doesn't put forth a separation agreement she will sue HM, and him saying he will sue JP for child support.....she might have used it as an ultimatum and things just got uglier...

Glad you answered also, DM. What with BC puffing out his chest saying "I should sue the *****," when he was still in denial mode, I just have this niggling little feeling she might have also threated to sue HM - of which, he certainly wouldn't have wanted that to happen.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I do think that if LE had an interview with the 4 yo, depending on her personality and maturity would likely have been able to say 'something' ie. I woke up, noone was home, or I answered the phone. Or even, 'my mom was sick' My grandbabies are all 4...one very precosious, one smart as whip, nothing gets by him and the other willing to tell you everything and anything that goes on in her house and usually it is not the correct version, just a 4 yo verson. I really don't think she answered the phone. I do think she saw her mother in running clothes, but honestly..she is 4 time is a nonconcept. 4 weeks ago could be yesterday for some. Again it would depend on the child.

I don't think she had anything of value or at least anything that wouldn't come into question. I honestly don't believe she saw or heard anything from that day/morning. I have waivered back and forth in what I believe *probably* happened that morning. I am more of the mind that BC stating that he and NC were up with one of the children at 4 am is probably closer to when the events occured. I don't think they were up with the children.

Kelly

Here is the one and only reason I thought it might be a possibility: Brad stated that he put the children to bed around 8:30, asleep by 9. He stated that the 4 year old didn't wake up until 8:30 the next morning. I'm sure it's possible that a 4 year old would sleep that long but it is unusual. It was a "raised eyebrow" moment for me.

 

[sunshine05]

No, I don't think they need to make that suggestion in closing and I don't think it's a huge leap. He very well may have set up the call. He had the knowledge and access to the equipment. The defense has to rely on the jury to believe that Nancy made that call. If they believe that it could have been done another way, the phone call will be dismissed as non evidence. So we're back to did she leave the house to go jogging that day or not?

No. There is no record of the call on the Cisco call logs. It would have to be there. If it was a different (non-cisco) call management site, the state never even suggested that. The spoofed call concept was a flop. That means, there is every reason to believe NC made that call.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I agree. I think it's not a stretch that they skim through sites like this from time to time but would not expect them to place people on message boards.

Dunno, I just think that a lot of folks have invested so much time and emotion into this case that they feel that they are somehow part of it.

 

[johnfear]

I think the judge is on websleuths....seriously, what is he doing on there all day if he is so technically un-inclined?

I wonder if the murderer (if it were not BC) could be amongst us...I think they could.

I think SHE or HE could be right here bouncing things off of us all day long. MUH HA HA.

 

[jmflu]

Who would have thought a witness would come here and post directly to us the day he testified?

If he had posted anonymously, would people ridicule the very idea that a witness would post here?

Ex-lover, witness, neighbor, mother, defense, prosecution... any one of us who believe 100% in our conviction with no leeway that BC is either guilty or innocent could be one of those people.

 

[Cheyenne130]

No. There is no record of the call on the Cisco call logs. It would have to be there. If it was a different (non-cisco) call management site, the state never even suggested that. The spoofed call concept was a flop. That means, there is every reason to believe NC made that call.

You might need to listen to that testimony again. The expert explained how it could be accomplished and leave no record.

 

[sunshine05]

You might need to listen to that testimony again. The expert explained how it could be accomplished and leave no record.

Of course. Everyone knows there are many ways it could be done and leave no record. But there are records - the Cooper home phone bill and BC's cell.

The "spoofed" call should be on the Cisco IT managed site but it's not. That is the end of the story I'm afraid. The state rested it's case.

 

[dramamama]

Here is the one and only reason I thought it might be a possibility: Brad stated that he put the children to bed around 8:30, asleep by 9. He stated that the 4 year old didn't wake up until 8:30 the next morning. I'm sure it's possible that a 4 year old would sleep that long but it is unusual. It was a "raised eyebrow" moment for me.

I see your point. I would give who knows how much to get that much sleep out of my kids on a Friday night!!!! However, there was likely fighting going on at home, and the kids were probably used to hearing mommy and daddy fight from their bed. Kids do not sleep through that. I remember that as a child from my own parents, and also as an adult, hearing my children discuss in therapy the fighting my ex and I did after we thought they were asleep.

If it was a peaceful night, they were probably sleeping extra-long.....

However, BC did not mention in any of his initial statements that B was awoken before NC left to jog. Not a single one. That only came after she stayed with MH and she told them what NC was wearing. So, it is reasonable to assume that B wakes up, asks where's Mommy?, and he says, she went running. So, she visualizes, as kids do at that age, what mommy looks like when she goes running, because that is what they do developmentally to reassure themselves, especially in an unstable home. It was very unlikely that it was that morning, I think....

 

[Cheyenne130]

NC was continuing to see this man once she was back in North Carolina. That was why she needed an alibi. Makes perfect sense to me. The person NC was talking to one the phone was not on the trip. (At least there was no testimony to that.) The two married couples were on that particular trip.

Once they were back in NC, apparently NC continue to see this person. Maybe the same person she was with at Krista's wedding.

If anyone is having trouble keeping up, I will try to speak slowly. After all, I am Southern.

Where is the evidence that she continued to see this person once she was back in North Carolina? The only testimony that I heard is that she invited him to her sisters wedding.

 

[dramamama]

I think the judge is on websleuths....seriously, what is he doing on there all day if he is so technically un-inclined?

I wonder if the murderer (if it were not BC) could be amongst us...I think they could.

I think SHE or HE could be right here bouncing things off of us all day long. MUH HA HA.

Now those are some conspiracy theories I can get behind!

 

[johnfear]

You might need to listen to that testimony again. The expert explained how it could be accomplished and leave no record.

The state would have been better off to use the timeline that presents itself.

Something to the effect of: He killed her, then went to the grocery store and faked an alibi, then spent the morning "cleaning house" after he dumped the body.

On the other hand, if he had any brains about him, he shoulda been like: Nancy? Nancy who? Oh, she didn't come back home last night. Should I have called someone?

 

[Madeleine74]

Okay, here were the choices:

1. Random attacker?
2. Someone who knew Nancy?
3. Someone who knew Nancy and had skillzzz to hack into Brad's computer?


NCSU and FD believe in #1 (yes?) That was the first scenario.