CARYISHOME
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 0
OMG! Yes, I remember! I live very close to there and drive over that bridge several times a day. I walk down that greenway sometimes, too.
Her husband was eventually convicted.
Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #20
- Thread starter christine2448
- Start date
- Status
OMG! Yes, I remember! I live very close to there and drive over that bridge several times a day. I walk down that greenway sometimes, too.
Her husband was eventually convicted.
wirehair
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 0
Maybe he didn't owe "it" to Nancy's family but, I think he d-mn-d sure owed it to Nancy, their 2 daughters and himself !!! If he was innocent.......his children wouldn't be in Canada right now.
raisincharlie
Racing Doesn't Lie
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 16,856
- Reaction score
- 141
He's sweet though..........
OMG :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
EntreNous
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,098
- Reaction score
- 47
Since when did the Rentz family tell the CPD how to retrieve the girls? They had a large number of police officers surround him and take the children from him crying? You really think the Rentz's orchestrated the manner in which the CPD did that? And you believe they'd sneak an arrest past the judge? Really? Wow, they must be some seriously sinister people in your estimation. And apparently the CPD is up for hire by the Rentz family and the judge is in what, a coma?
As to the third highlighted comment, Brad Cooper isn't grieving alone. He's grieving with his parents, his brother, Scott Heider and his other friends who filed affidavits on his behalf. He's not alone. What would make you think he is?
I forgot something, any and all secret grieving he does is his clear and conscious choice.
jumpstreet
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2008
- Messages
- 703
- Reaction score
- 0
Make no mistake, [imho] they have at least one POI. If nothing else, as evidenced by the warrant of the workplace. I assert they don't bother to search one's office (nor get judge to issue a warrant for same) without being very interested in you, or something about you.
The key is they (presumably intentionally) haven't named a POI (as that requires them to divulge other pieces of information to the defense earlier than LE would prefer to). It may be frustrating to the public, and may appear as if there's little progress, but it doesn't mean that's reality.
It's semantics, and strategic: If LE thinks that publicly naming someone a POI will help them get to an arrest sooner (perhaps force someone to "slip up", get "nervous", or confess), then they'll name a POI/suspect.
If LE doesn't think naming a POI/suspect will help them get to an arrest sooner, then there's no incentive to name one. [ At least not in the short term, and even in the long term, it just becomes a PR problem ("LE's been working on this case for XX and they still don't have any leads/suspects!"), but the PR is still secondary to their desire to achieve justice (and rightly so IMO) ]
In this specific case, it seems fairly likely that a suspect/POI will be named/made-known at the same time they're being placed under arrest. Even then, they may not do it explicitly. [ Though, I'll also assert it can be inferred when being read your Miranda rights, that LE has a developed a profound interest in you
]LE has POI(s), they just haven't (and likely) won't name them (does not imply a lack of progress [let's hope]
).Yep. Happened about a mile from my previous home.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/165670/
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/165915/
Hey, he is Canadian and was studying for an MBA too!
bad moo moo :slap:
Make no mistake, [imho] they have at least one POI. If nothing else, as evidenced by the warrant of the workplace. I assert they don't bother to search one's office (nor get judge to issue a warrant for same) without being very interested in you, or something about you.
The key is they (presumably intentionally) haven't named a POI (as that requires them to divulge other pieces of information to the defense earlier than LE would prefer to). It may be frustrating to the public, and may appear as if there's little progress, but it doesn't mean that's reality.
It's semantics, and strategic: If LE thinks that publicly naming someone a POI will help them get to an arrest sooner (perhaps force someone to "slip up", get "nervous", or confess), then they'll name a POI/suspect.
If LE doesn't think naming a POI/suspect will help them get to an arrest sooner, then there's no incentive to name one. [ At least not in the short term, and even in the long term, it just becomes a PR problem ("LE's been working on this case for XX and they still don't have any leads/suspects!"), but the PR is still secondary to their desire to achieve justice (and rightly so IMO) ]
In this specific case, it seems fairly likely that a suspect/POI will be named/made-known at the same time they're being placed under arrest. Even then, they may not do it explicitly. [ Though, I'll also assert it can be inferred when being read your Miranda rights, that LE has a developed a profound interest in you
LE has POI(s), they just haven't (and likely) won't name them (does not imply a lack of progress [let's hope]
I totally understand what you are saying BUT this will be different than any case than I can ever think of. Sure they looked hard at her husband and only idiots would not. The fact is that if he just went nuts and killed her and left evidence everywhere, he would be in jail by now. He is not and has not been named as anything but cooperative even with all of the search warrants. I could name numerous reason that they would search
Brad's computer at work.
[snip]
The key is they (presumably intentionally) haven't named a POI (as that requires them to divulge other pieces of information to the defense earlier than LE would prefer to). It may be frustrating to the public, and may appear as if there's little progress, but it doesn't mean that's reality.
It's semantics, and strategic: If LE thinks that publicly naming someone a POI will help them get to an arrest sooner (perhaps force someone to "slip up", get "nervous", or confess), then they'll name a POI/suspect.
If LE doesn't think naming a POI/suspect will help them get to an arrest sooner, then there's no incentive to name one.
[snip]
LE has POI(s), they just haven't (and likely) won't name them (does not imply a lack of progress [let's hope]
Doesn't LE risk their prime suspect fleeing if they don't name them as a POI or suspect?
Make no mistake, [imho] they have at least one POI. If nothing else, as evidenced by the warrant of the workplace. I assert they don't bother to search one's office (nor get judge to issue a warrant for same) without being very interested in you, or something about you.
The key is they (presumably intentionally) haven't named a POI (as that requires them to divulge other pieces of information to the defense earlier than LE would prefer to). It may be frustrating to the public, and may appear as if there's little progress, but it doesn't mean that's reality.
It's semantics, and strategic: If LE thinks that publicly naming someone a POI will help them get to an arrest sooner (perhaps force someone to "slip up", get "nervous", or confess), then they'll name a POI/suspect.
If LE doesn't think naming a POI/suspect will help them get to an arrest sooner, then there's no incentive to name one. [ At least not in the short term, and even in the long term, it just becomes a PR problem ("LE's been working on this case for XX and they still don't have any leads/suspects!"), but the PR is still secondary to their desire to achieve justice (and rightly so IMO) ]
In this specific case, it seems fairly likely that a suspect/POI will be named/made-known at the same time they're being placed under arrest. Even then, they may not do it explicitly. [ Though, I'll also assert it can be inferred when being read your Miranda rights, that LE has a developed a profound interest in you
LE has POI(s), they just haven't (and likely) won't name them (does not imply a lack of progress [let's hope]
Thank ya Jesus.............the voice of reason here :clap: and I love the way you put it in "basic" terms. Can we "sticky" this post.......LOL.
raisincharlie
Racing Doesn't Lie
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 16,856
- Reaction score
- 141
How cooperative is he ? Why did LE have to have a warrant to take a DNA sample from him at 3am on the 16th ?
Roy I just don't buy the line if he left evidence everywhere he would be in jail. Collecting that evidence, controlling it and having it analyzed all take time. The SBI lab does not prioritize samples to the point of having results yesterday - in fact their turn around time is reported to be 60 days. While LE may see evidence everywhere - until the reality of it is determined through testing and following all records and leads- LE would be incredibly foolish to arrest someone without these results. No DA is going to go for an arrest warrant from the GJ until they have a darn good idea they can prove the case - what LE may simply see is simply not good enough.
RC,
LE has stated that Brad has been fully cooperative. Brad did not deny DNA samples. They just got a warrant for it anyway. Name a case that has been even remotely like this where you have TONS of circumstancial evidence that shows the husband despises his wife, has been totally cooperative, they recovered a body close to the house, and is not a POI at this point of the investigation.
LE has stated that Brad has been fully cooperative. Brad did not deny DNA samples. They just got a warrant for it anyway. Name a case that has been even remotely like this where you have TONS of circumstancial evidence that shows the husband despises his wife, has been totally cooperative, they recovered a body close to the house, and is not a POI at this point of the investigation.
raisincharlie
Racing Doesn't Lie
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 16,856
- Reaction score
- 141
Cooperative - not fully cooperative. Tons of circumstantial evidence - you told me earlier it is all hearsey - EVERYTHING was hearsey even the PD Chief reporting that there had been no reported sightings of Nancy.
He could not deny the DNA sample when being served a warrant for the collection of it - otherwise he would indeed be in jail, for contempt. How do you know he or his lawyer didn't deny to give the sample and tell LE to get a warrant for it, if I may ask ?
These kinds of cases are a dime a dozen anymore - unfortunately. Some even include murder victims inside their own home much less dumped. Several are being discussed on this website.
momto3kids
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,678
- Reaction score
- 0
No, but he owed it to Nancy the woman he claims to have loved, and wanted the marriage to work with.
Reread BC's affidavit 194 & 195. He spent the morning with the girls before the service on Saturday and told Bella what happened to her mom just before the service.
If BC was anything of a man and not a mouse, he would have sucked it up for those girls he claims he loves and gotten thru it with them. What is a parent for? To be there in time of need. HE WASN'T THERE when they needed him!
How HORRIBLE to tell you children mommy is dead then walk away from them.
It is absolutely disgusting IMO
Had he denied a DNA sample he would have been labled incooperative. When LE is forced to get search warrants they do not label a suspect or anyone as cooperative. You should know this. It is time for you to accept that this is not as simple of a case as you think. Right now Brad Cooper is free to leave the country and do whatever he wants. I don't doubt that he might be a killer but this case has twists and turns that we have no idea of. Scott Peterson was a POI almost immediately and without a body. He was shadowed. Brad is a cooperative and LE is doing everything they can to try and name him a POI or suspect. Think about how DNA could be involved in this case. They are obviously waiting on it. If this is a DNA case, there was a struggle. They obviously see very little at minimum sign of a stuggle in that house. Touch DNA maybe? Or possibly a rape/murder.
You have to understand that LE has labeled BC as very cooperative. Just read the interviews. Name a case like this. Casey Anthony? Michelle Young? Scott Peterson? There is not one that I know of.
fran
Former Member
FWIW, Laci Peterson disappeared on Xmas Eve and by March LE had submitted their case to the DA who wanted them to hold off and continue to search for the body.
Laci and Conner washed ashore and five days later identified and Scott Peterson was arrested on April 18th.
Long time coming when LE KNEW they had their man, just not quite enough evidence, ie the body.
Nancy Cooper has been autopsied prior to all of the 'evidence' being tested. It's just a matter of time before the results will be in.
JMHO
fran
Laci and Conner washed ashore and five days later identified and Scott Peterson was arrested on April 18th.
Long time coming when LE KNEW they had their man, just not quite enough evidence, ie the body.
Nancy Cooper has been autopsied prior to all of the 'evidence' being tested. It's just a matter of time before the results will be in.
JMHO
fran
Scott Peterson was a POI that LE followed every where he went. LE was his shadow and they released evidence of foul play. He was a suspect and POI unlike here. It doesn't compare.
momto3kids
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,678
- Reaction score
- 0
So an update....BC has paid his electric bill as of today. He has lights on, actually all the downstairs are on, even the porch light. You would think company is coming. The blind that was partially opened on the staircase...the one with the ADT sign in it....CLOSED tight.
Sorry this can't be more exciting to report, but I am sure it will be soon, I hope.
Sorry this can't be more exciting to report, but I am sure it will be soon, I hope.
- Status