1544 users online (310 members and 1234 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 73 of 73 FirstFirst ... 23 63 71 72 73
Results 1,081 to 1,091 of 1091
  1. #1081
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    I think you are forgetting the nonprofit is not the media. What have you seen lately, and I'm talking in the last 2 years from or about the fund? (hint: nada).

    If you don't like how the media reports things, then do something about that. "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own." a great quote by Wes C. Nisker.
    Oh how I wish I could change the media, but that is for another forum....

    Putting aside my vehement objection to the way that the fund blamed BC, I think it is a shame that memorial funds for murder victims only last a few years. A friend and colleague of mine was raped and murdered in a random attack a decade ago, and her fund only lasted a few years before people forgot about it.

  2. #1082
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,232
    Quote Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
    He also went out to Harris Teeter twice that morning. It is entirely possible that NC went in to see Bella while he was out. And he would not have reported that to the police since he wasn't there.
    If she was still alive at that point (and I don't think she was), but if she was and if she did what you suggest, she was still only dressed in Brad's long white Tshirt from the time he says he "met her in the hallway due a a crying K" around 4am. It wasn't until he was back from his 2nd and final Harris Teeter trip and then after he says he took the youngest child and her bottle upstairs that Nancy supposedly changed into shorts & other running gear, at which she supposedly called up to him about a running top, then said "never mind," then left right after that, all without coming upstairs. And please don't start with the "Brad was confused and couldn't remember all the details" again. It's the same story Brad told police then the detectives on 7/12/08, 7/13/08, then again related during his deposition 3 months later in October. Remember Brad claims he "never saw" what Nancy was actually wearing when she "left to go running" because she was downstairs and he was upstairs with the children at the time she got dressed. And don't forget he said the eldest child never woke up and was still asleep in her bed and didn't get up until 8:30am.

  3. #1083
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    If she was still alive at that point (and I don't think she was), but if she was and if she did what you suggest, she was still only dressed in Brad's long white Tshirt from the time he says he "met her in the hallway due a a crying K" around 4am. It wasn't until he was back from his 2nd and final Harris Teeter trip and then after he says he took the youngest child and her bottle upstairs that Nancy supposedly changed into shorts & other running gear, at which she supposedly called up to him about a running top, then said "never mind," then left right after that, all without coming upstairs. And please don't start with the "Brad was confused and couldn't remember all the details" again. It's the same story Brad told police then the detectives on 7/12/08, 7/13/08, then again related during his deposition 3 months later in October. Remember Brad claims he "never saw" what Nancy was actually wearing when she "left to go running" because she was downstairs and he was upstairs with the children at the time she got dressed. And don't forget he said the eldest child never woke up and was still asleep in her bed and didn't get up until 8:30am.
    Of course you don't want me to start with the "Brad was confused and couldn't remember all the details" because it is the most reasonable explanation for the discrepancies in the small details of that morning. We've already seen that JA and HP couldn't remember details correctly from that morning or the day before. If anything, BC's description of that morning indicate that he was not fabricating the story. In addition, as I mentioned repeatedly, we DO NOT have a clear view of what BC actually told the police that morning. You are relying mostly on the deposition. Look at the confusion that happened with regard to the dress and how inaccurately the police described BC's memory of the dress.

    Finally, are you seriously attempting to impeach the child based on this? We have an idea of what the child said specifically, albeit based on hearsay. We know it is not admissible in court. We also know that the police were negligent in not interviewing the child after they learned that she had reported seeing her mother that morning. The case does not hinge on what the child said, but it is yet another instance that is completely inconsistent with the BDI scenario.

  4. #1084
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
    Of course you don't want me to start with the "Brad was confused and couldn't remember all the details" because it is the most reasonable explanation for the discrepancies in the small details of that morning. We've already seen that JA and HP couldn't remember details correctly from that morning or the day before. If anything, BC's description of that morning indicate that he was not fabricating the story. In addition, as I mentioned repeatedly, we DO NOT have a clear view of what BC actually told the police that morning. You are relying mostly on the deposition. Look at the confusion that happened with regard to the dress and how inaccurately the police described BC's memory of the dress.

    Finally, are you seriously attempting to impeach the child based on this? We have an idea of what the child said specifically, albeit based on hearsay. We know it is not admissible in court. We also know that the police were negligent in not interviewing the child after they learned that she had reported seeing her mother that morning. The case does not hinge on what the child said, but it is yet another instance that is completely inconsistent with the BDI scenario.
    As a grandmother of a very bright 4 year old granddaughter, I can tell you the idea of time from this age group is not reliable evidence. Very often she will tell me about something she did 2 weeks ago but say it was yesterday. Also when asking when she is going to do something that I know is about a month away she will say tomorrow. I believe this to be typical of 4 year olds and the concept of time.Ithink Bella's saying she saw her that day,in Bella's mind, it could have been a memory of Nancy she had from days ago.

  5. #1085
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Grammy Jean View Post
    As a grandmother of a very bright 4 year old granddaughter, I can tell you the idea of time from this age group is not reliable evidence. Very often she will tell me about something she did 2 weeks ago but say it was yesterday. Also when asking when she is going to do something that I know is about a month away she will say tomorrow. I believe this to be typical of 4 year olds and the concept of time.Ithink Bella's saying she saw her that day,in Bella's mind, it could have been a memory of Nancy she had from days ago.
    That is a possibility. Although anecdotally, my nieces were both very time conscious and would have been able to easily distinguish between that day and a previous day when they were four. It is not clear that her memory was 100% correct. However, something as simple as whether she saw NC that morning is a pretty simple and binary question. The downside is that we will never know precisely because the police refused to interview the child.

    I'll also note that the DA was willing to use the words of the 2 year old child in the Jason Young prosecution, and a 4 year old is exponentially more self aware and able to recall better than a 2 year old.

  6. #1086
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,232
    When did this "refusal" to interview the child occur? For a "refusal" to occur it means someone requested that police conduct an interview and the answer given back by LE to the requester is "no, we will not." As I recall, the defense asked Dismukes on the stand, if he interviewed the child or if he knew anyone at LE had interviewed the child. He was asked why he did not interview the child.

    An interview with the child wouldn't have been done by Dismukes or the other regular detectives. A specially trained investigator (trained to work with young children) would have been used to conduct an interview with a 4 year old. That interview would probably have occurred in a setting in which the child's interview would be video and/or audio taped, unlikely in the child's home. Maybe at police headquarters if they had an appropriate set up.

    Now who was the parent/legal guardian here.... oh yes, Brad. So, did Brad request LE interview his 4 yr old daughter at any time and have that request refused? Nothing about that mentioned in any proceeding. Brad himself refused to go to police headquarters when requested on either Sunday 7/13 or Monday 7/14/08 after searching for Nancy, and that was totally his legal right to refuse.

    Brad told his story and stuck to it from the beginning. His story was that his daughter was asleep until 8:30am and Nancy was not dressed in her running gear until around 7am, moments before he heard the door slam shut as she presumably left, which he didn't see, nor his daughters as both were upstairs, the oldest asleep in her bed. His words. And If LE got any of that incorrect from their notes taken then there's the deposition to corroborate what Brad said. And, Brad had the opportunity to get on the stand as well, where he could have clarified anything he said from before, but he declined to do that as well.

  7. #1087
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    When did this "refusal" to interview the child occur? For a "refusal" to occur it means someone requested that police conduct an interview and the answer given back by LE to the requester is "no, we will not." As I recall, the defense asked Dismukes on the stand, if he interviewed the child or if he knew anyone at LE had interviewed the child. He was asked why he did not interview the child.

    An interview with the child wouldn't have been done by Dismukes or the other regular detectives. A specially trained investigator (trained to work with young children) would have been used to conduct an interview with a 4 year old. That interview would probably have occurred in a setting in which the child's interview would be video and/or audio taped, unlikely in the child's home. Maybe at police headquarters if they had an appropriate set up.
    The police had an opportunity to interview someone that said they saw NC the day she disappeared. And they didn't. They had specially trained people at the CPD that could do this, and they didn't. Why?
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Now who was the parent/legal guardian here.... oh yes, Brad. So, did Brad request LE interview his 4 yr old daughter at any time and have that request refused? Nothing about that mentioned in any proceeding. Brad himself refused to go to police headquarters when requested on either Sunday 7/13 or Monday 7/14/08 after searching for Nancy, and that was totally his legal right to refuse.
    Wait, so now Brad had to REQUEST that the police investigate????


    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Brad told his story and stuck to it from the beginning. His story was that his daughter was asleep until 8:30am and Nancy was not dressed in her running gear until around 7am, moments before he heard the door slam shut as she presumably left, which he didn't see, nor his daughters as both were upstairs, the oldest asleep in her bed. His words. And If LE got any of that incorrect from their notes taken then there's the deposition to corroborate what Brad said. And, Brad had the opportunity to get on the stand as well, where he could have clarified anything he said from before, but he declined to do that as well.
    This has been addressed so many times in the past two days and you refuse to acknowledge reality, it really is not worth doing it again.

  8. #1088
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,232
    Quote Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
    The police had an opportunity to interview someone that said they saw NC the day she disappeared. And they didn't. They had specially trained people at the CPD that could do this, and they didn't. Why?
    I go with trial testimony.

    Could police just decide to interview the eldest child, a minor, without Brad's permission as her legal guardian? That's a yes or no answer, Oenophile.

    You keep claiming police "refused" to interview the child. That's your exact word. Refused. And I asked you who requested them to do so? You know full well police can't legally interview a child without the parent's permission. They should have asked for that permission, though had Brad refused I wonder what folks would have thought about that? But they didn't, so we'll never know that.

    At the point of the initial investigation on the afternoon of 7/12/08 Nancy had not come home and no one knew where she was. The eldest child did not see her mother out running. She would not have been able to pinpoint Nancy's whereabouts. The statement relayed through Dismukes proffer via Clea, outside of cameras and outside the presence of the jury is that the daughter "saw her mother that morning," right? She wasn't out running with her mother, the child wasn't even dressed until sometime after 9am. So any sighting she had of her mother would have been inside the house and before 7am, correct? How would that have helped *find* a missing Nancy? They already had Brad saying Nancy left the house at or slightly before 7am. Brad gave a description of what he presumed Nancy was wearing. The efforts on 7/12 - 7/14 were on conducting searches and trying to figure out where Nancy was.

    The reason you're actually upset about this statement not coming in at trial is because you want Nancy to be alive at whatever time she needs to be still alive in order to make it impossible for Brad to have killed his wife. It doesn't matter if the child was coaxed or even outright told she saw her mother and was manipulated, and of course we can't know any such thing occurred, the point is a statement coming in would have been suggestive enough for the defense to claim that's an alibi for Brad, and that's where the anger is really centered. Because it's all about Brad.

    This has been addressed so many times in the past two days and you refuse to acknowledge reality, it really is not worth doing it again.
    Ok let's address reality. What is the reality, Oenophile? I go with trial testimony, just like the jury. You are imagining and suggesting things that have zero basis in fact -- like imagining a daughter waking up and seeing her mother (dressed in running gear I suppose) while Brad is at Harris Teeter, then claiming Brad must have been confused about what transpired that morning, and investigators must have gotten his story wrong in their notes anyway. Um, okay. Point to the trial testimony in which any witness provides proof of Brad's confusion about that morning or even any testimony that the story he told any of the (3? 4?) officers is different than what the investigators testified to when they were on the stand?

  9. #1089
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    I go with trial testimony.
    Clearly you are not because you have consistently ignored trial testimony as well as argument during the trial that were outside the testimony.
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Could police just decide to interview the eldest child, a minor, without Brad's permission as her legal guardian? That's a yes or no answer, Oenophile.
    Could the police have asked Brad's permission to interview the eldest child? That is a yes or no answer, Madeleine74. Did the police ask Brad's permission to interview the eldest child? That is a yes or no answer, Madeleine74. Did Brad refuse permission to interview the eldest child? That is a yes or no answer, Madeleine74.
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    You keep claiming police "refused" to interview the child. That's your exact word. Refused. And I asked you who requested them to do so? You know full well police can't legally interview a child without the parent's permission. They should have asked for that permission, though had Brad refused I wonder what folks would have thought about that? But they didn't, so we'll never know that.
    The police did not need Brad to request an interview with the child. The public requested that the police do a thorough investigation as part of their civic duty. That includes following up all leads and gathering appropriate evidence. The police "refused" to do that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    At the point of the initial investigation on the afternoon of 7/12/08 Nancy had not come home and no one knew where she was. The eldest child did not see her mother out running. She would not have been able to pinpoint Nancy's whereabouts. The statement relayed through Dismukes proffer via Clea, outside of cameras and outside the presence of the jury is that the daughter "saw her mother that morning," right? She wasn't out running with her mother, the child wasn't even dressed until sometime after 9am. So any sighting she had of her mother would have been inside the house and before 7am, correct? How would that have helped *find* a missing Nancy? They already had Brad saying Nancy left the house at or slightly before 7am. Brad gave a description of what he presumed Nancy was wearing. The efforts on 7/12 - 7/14 were on conducting searches and trying to figure out where Nancy was.
    The police seemed plenty intent on determining if she had actually been out running that morning, as BC claimed. Interviewing the child could have helped verify that.

    Are you SERIOUSLY saying that the police had no reason to interview the child????????? What could possibly make you think that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    The reason you're actually upset about this statement not coming in at trial is because you want Nancy to be alive at whatever time she needs to be still alive in order to make it impossible for Brad to have killed his wife. It doesn't matter if the child was coaxed or even outright told she saw her mother and was manipulated, and of course we can't know any such thing occurred, the point is a statement coming in would have been suggestive enough for the defense to claim that's an alibi for Brad, and that's where the anger is really centered. Because it's all about Brad.
    That is just baloney and insulting.

    1. I have NEVER stated that I was upset that this statement was not coming up at trial. Legally, I think the court was correct in excluding it.
    2. I have stated repeatedly, from the beginning, and consistently, that my belief in BC's innocence is based on the EVIDENCE and the EVIDENCE alone. While it is true that I am considering evidence that was excluded in BC's unfair trial, it is entirely based on what was raised as part of the trial process. NC was killed. No one can change that. And no one can change who did it. If the EVIDENCE says that BC did not kill his wife, then he didn't. If the EVIDENCE proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he did, then he did. I don't want BC to be innocent, and I don't want BC to be guilty, I want his innocence or guilt to be ACCURATE.
    3. That is the second time (or more) that you have accused me of working for the defense or suggested that I was pushing for BC to be innocent. I have stated repeatedly the conditions by which I would change my opinion to guilty. It is fundamentally wrong for you to make this accusation.

    I think an apology is in order.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Ok let's address reality. What is the reality, Oenophile? I go with trial testimony, just like the jury. You are imagining and suggesting things that have zero basis in fact -- like imagining a daughter waking up and seeing her mother (dressed in running gear I suppose) while Brad is at Harris Teeter, then claiming Brad must have been confused about what transpired that morning, and investigators must have gotten his story wrong in their notes anyway. Um, okay. Point to the trial testimony in which any witness provides proof of Brad's confusion about that morning or even any testimony that the story he told any of the (3? 4?) officers is different than what the investigators testified to when they were on the stand?
    REALITY #1: The trial verdict was set aside because the trial was considered unfair.
    REALITY #2: The police updated their notes well after the initial interviews that day to include things that would be damaging to Brad, and then included these in their testimony.
    REALITY #3: Nancy's friends made mistakes that day recalling the events of the night before and even the morning of, which came out in trial testimony.
    REALITY #4: Brad has been accused of lying in his hours-long deposition about specifics that night and that morning, for example about not working that evening, but these "lies" serve no benefit to his defense because they were easily discoverable. If he were guilty, he would have been better off accurately remembering what he did that night, which infers that he wasn't in fact lying but rather misremembered, just like Nancy's friends misremembered.

    REALITY #5: The child made the statement to the neighbor.

    Your denial of REALITY #5 is telling. Again, you are attempting to impeach the child. Shameful.
    Last edited by oenophile; 09-07-2014 at 04:46 AM.

  10. #1090
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    29,161
    I will open a new thread and move the pertinent posts over.

    Salem


  11. #1091
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    29,161
    Please continue here in the plea deal thread. I will move some posts over than I'll be locking up this thread.

    Salem


    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...l-in-the-Works
    Last edited by fran; 09-08-2014 at 07:05 PM. Reason: add link to plead deal thread

Page 73 of 73 FirstFirst ... 23 63 71 72 73


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 765
    Last Post: 10-29-2014, 05:28 PM
  2. Brad Cooper
    By SeriouslySearching in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 211
    Last Post: 04-13-2014, 11:09 PM
  3. State v Brad Cooper 4-8-2011
    By cityslick in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 592
    Last Post: 04-09-2011, 08:30 PM
  4. Brad Cooper Indicted #2
    By CW in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-10-2009, 04:08 PM
  5. Brad Cooper Indicted
    By courtney in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 738
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 08:42 PM

Tags for this Thread