Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Crimes and Trials > Trials > Nancy Cooper

Notices

Nancy Cooper Found murdered after being reported missing while on a morning jog


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 05-09-2011, 02:51 PM
fran fran is offline
WS Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 31,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
Another thing that bothers me about this case is how much attention was made about BC's affair, as if that indicated motive. It *could* if the suspect were still involved in the affair and wanted to off the spouse to be with the person they are having an affair with, but that doesn't apply in this case. The affair had nothing at all to do with this case, except that it was the reason for the divorce. I guess I'm just puzzled that the state made this such a large part of the case when it wouldn't have had anything to do with motive. I still fail to see what the motive was.

KISS and common sense apply here.

The affair was the motive for the divorce. The divorce was a motive for the murder.

JMHO
fran
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to fran For This Useful Post:
  #27  
Old 05-09-2011, 03:00 PM
macd macd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 350
Will there be a public release of the transcript from the offer of proof given by CF on the subject of the windows system event log?

I think that info will show that 3825 was in the house and being configured at 10:21pm on 7/11, but that router was not in the house on 7/12.

Seems like if we could have a more interesting discussion about the router if we had info from that testimony that was not streamed.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to macd For This Useful Post:
  #28  
Old 05-09-2011, 03:06 PM
ncsu95 ncsu95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by macd View Post
Will there be a public release of the transcript from the offer of proof given by CF on the subject of the windows system event log?

I think that info will show that 3825 was in the house and being configured at 10:21pm on 7/11, but that router was not in the house on 7/12.

Seems like if we could have a more interesting discussion about the router if we had info from that testimony that was not streamed.
Actually, we don't know that the router wasn't there on the 12th. I'm not arguing that it was, but the search warrant for network equipment in the house wasn't served until October. It just wasn't in the pictures taken on the 12th.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-09-2011, 03:43 PM
azwildcat's Avatar
azwildcat azwildcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Williston, VT
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoughlyCollie View Post
Because, IMO, their disappearance after a friend (JA?) testified they had been in the foyer the day before NC disappeared, along with BC's washing the foyer floor that day, bolstered the theory that NC had been murdered in the foyer.

The ducks and sticks needed to disappear because they were either vomited upon by NC during her murder, or they were somehow damaged during the strife.

In turn, the vomit theory supports the idea that NC was killed soon after she arrived home, and since he was the only one there capable of killing her, BC did it. The autopsy report showed, IIRC, that she had only a small amount of red fluid and a small piece of onion in her stomach.

BC's mother found the ducks packed in a box, after NC's body had been discovered, IIRC. This does not mean that BC did not hide the ducks after something happened to them, and then put them in the box himself after NC went missing. There is no proof of that, however. The missing sticks were never found.

The trouble with the theory is that there is no proof, particularly beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is the truth. IMO, a theory is a lovely thing if it has evidence to back it up.
Did they ever really discuss this theory? I remember (but please forgive me it's now all one big jumble in my head now) thinking they would bring this up but felt like they never did. Then Cummings had the weird questions with Mrs. Cooper about the ducks and I felt very confused. Just seemed like an odd amount of time used on this for something that ended up not being much of anything.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to azwildcat For This Useful Post:
  #30  
Old 05-09-2011, 04:00 PM
sunshine05 sunshine05 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by azwildcat View Post
Did they ever really discuss this theory? I remember (but please forgive me it's now all one big jumble in my head now) thinking they would bring this up but felt like they never did. Then Cummings had the weird questions with Mrs. Cooper about the ducks and I felt very confused. Just seemed like an odd amount of time used on this for something that ended up not being much of anything.
Everything JA told police laid the foundation for their entire case: NC never took off her necklace, the Cooper's only used ALL detergent, Nancy never ran alone, ducks and sticks were missing from the foyer and NC was due at her house to paint that morning. All have been proven false in the trial, except the paint plans, but that story has lots of holes in it. Take all of what she said away and the already very weak case becomes even weaker. What are we left with?
He cleaned the floor
He did laundry
His trunk was clean - did anyone ever photograph the rest of the car to see if it was also clean? We're told it was not, but I haven't seen evidence or missed it if it was presented. Plus SBI said some dirt was found in the trunk. It was not showroom clean.


I'm not even going to talk about the google evidence here because he was arrested for murder before that was even found.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sunshine05 For This Useful Post:
  #31  
Old 05-09-2011, 04:03 PM
sunshine05 sunshine05 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by fran View Post
KISS and common sense apply here.

The affair was the motive for the divorce. The divorce was a motive for the murder.

JMHO
fran
I personally don't see the divorce as motive for murder. There are some relationships where the spouse is very controlling and won't let their spouse leave or divorce them and things get volatile. They won't let them go. (If I can't have you no one can, type of thing). I don't see indication of that in their marriage so I don't see the divorce as motive.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sunshine05 For This Useful Post:
  #32  
Old 05-09-2011, 05:37 PM
Madeleine74's Avatar
Madeleine74 Madeleine74 is online now
From The Dept of Redundancy Dept
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,612
I think the Google search may have been found before arrest. Not totally sure on that, but I think so.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-09-2011, 05:40 PM
Madeleine74's Avatar
Madeleine74 Madeleine74 is online now
From The Dept of Redundancy Dept
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,612
Being divorced in and of itself probably is not a motive--but the money that is required to get divorced and then the settlements of property, assets, 401K, stock, etc, etc, can add up to a significant amount. Then there's alimony and child support.

Financial pressure or incentive is often a reason or a motive for crimes, including murder. Add in anger/rage and it's a potent cocktail.

People who were pointing their finger at JP used financial pressure as their reason for a 'motive' for him. Except JP wasn't under any financial pressure from Nancy.

Brad was, or would have been.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:
  #34  
Old 05-09-2011, 07:16 PM
Bottle Cap Bottle Cap is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by huck22 View Post
As a quiet, introverted man, this quote scares the hell out of me. I've always followed the Twain mindset that it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Gossip queens are far worse because they inject their opinions into the minds of others, who often accept those words as fact.
Naw, I don't think quiet and devoid of expression and reaction are the same. I don't think quiet and having even people who've known you for years not really know who you are are the same thing either. Even of the people who testified in BC's defense, not one of them had an insight into who he was or what he was like as a person. All those years, and not a clue as to his inner workings. Definitely not the same thing as quiet.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-09-2011, 07:28 PM
sunshine05 sunshine05 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
Being divorced in and of itself probably is not a motive--but the money that is required to get divorced and then the settlements of property, assets, 401K, stock, etc, etc, can add up to a significant amount. Then there's alimony and child support.

Financial pressure or incentive is often a reason or a motive for crimes, including murder. Add in anger/rage and it's a potent cocktail.

People who were pointing their finger at JP used financial pressure as their reason for a 'motive' for him. Except JP wasn't under any financial pressure from Nancy.

Brad was, or would have been.
I disagree about JP. I am 99% convinced that child is his. She looks exactly like JP. I saw the resemblance immediately, down to the left droopy eye. NC was saying something negative about him, he claims he doesn't remember. What was that all about? This was a lead that needed to be investigated thoroughly.

I disagree about financial pressure. He made decent money and his income would have continued to go up. He knew that.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sunshine05 For This Useful Post:
  #36  
Old 05-09-2011, 07:29 PM
sunshine05 sunshine05 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
I think the Google search may have been found before arrest. Not totally sure on that, but I think so.
I would love to have confirmation on this one way or another because I recall it was late '09? Does anyone know?
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sunshine05 For This Useful Post:
  #37  
Old 05-09-2011, 08:13 PM
ncsu95 ncsu95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
I think the Google search may have been found before arrest. Not totally sure on that, but I think so.
I would hope so given the lack of physical evidence.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:
  #38  
Old 05-09-2011, 09:01 PM
jumpstreet jumpstreet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 703
Until we hear from the jury (if we do), we won't know for sure how 'big' the google search was, but my guess is that it was a 'swing factor'. Anyone else think they would have convicted if that were off the table?

For discussion purposes, if state had entered evidence of the router being in the home on 7/11, I wonder if that would have served as an adequate 'smoking gun' as well.

Sure, the defense might have refuted it (claim it was 'disposed of', claim it was 'returned', claim the logs indicating presence of router were 'planted' too)...but I'm not sure how effective they would have been.

I'm just wondering whether folks still on the fence (or, not convinced the state met the burden) would change position if evidence of the router being present in the home on 7/11 was established.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-09-2011, 09:22 PM
Cheyenne130 Cheyenne130 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumpstreet View Post
Until we hear from the jury (if we do), we won't know for sure how 'big' the google search was, but my guess is that it was a 'swing factor'. Anyone else think they would have convicted if that were off the table?

For discussion purposes, if state had entered evidence of the router being in the home on 7/11, I wonder if that would have served as an adequate 'smoking gun' as well.

Sure, the defense might have refuted it (claim it was 'disposed of', claim it was 'returned', claim the logs indicating presence of router were 'planted' too)...but I'm not sure how effective they would have been.

I'm just wondering whether folks still on the fence (or, not convinced the state met the burden) would change position if evidence of the router being present in the home on 7/11 was established.
I had him at guilty before the google search came in. MOO
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cheyenne130 For This Useful Post:
  #40  
Old 05-09-2011, 09:43 PM
Bottle Cap Bottle Cap is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
I personally don't see the divorce as motive for murder. There are some relationships where the spouse is very controlling and won't let their spouse leave or divorce them and things get volatile. They won't let them go. (If I can't have you no one can, type of thing). I don't see indication of that in their marriage so I don't see the divorce as motive.
Read the ex-girlfriend's affidavit for a clue as to his behavior the last time someone tried to leave him.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bottle Cap For This Useful Post:
  #41  
Old 05-09-2011, 09:50 PM
sunshine05 sunshine05 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottle Cap View Post
Read the ex-girlfriend's affidavit for a clue as to his behavior the last time someone tried to leave him.
I have read the ex's stuff and I'm sorry, but to me it is heresay because it is one-sided. I don't believe there is an affidavit. If so, please post the link because I have seen nothing more than messages from her here.

He had no problem with her going drinking with her friends and on extended vacations without him, even with other men. That is not a possessive/controlling husband characteristic.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sunshine05 For This Useful Post:
  #42  
Old 05-09-2011, 09:51 PM
sunshine05 sunshine05 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumpstreet View Post
Until we hear from the jury (if we do), we won't know for sure how 'big' the google search was, but my guess is that it was a 'swing factor'. Anyone else think they would have convicted if that were off the table?

For discussion purposes, if state had entered evidence of the router being in the home on 7/11, I wonder if that would have served as an adequate 'smoking gun' as well.

Sure, the defense might have refuted it (claim it was 'disposed of', claim it was 'returned', claim the logs indicating presence of router were 'planted' too)...but I'm not sure how effective they would have been.

I'm just wondering whether folks still on the fence (or, not convinced the state met the burden) would change position if evidence of the router being present in the home on 7/11 was established.
No, because it was more than just the physical presence of the router. There was no record of the call on the Cisco IT system.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sunshine05 For This Useful Post:
  #43  
Old 05-09-2011, 09:56 PM
lib's mom's Avatar
lib's mom lib's mom is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
I would love to have confirmation on this one way or another because I recall it was late '09? Does anyone know?
I have a memory of reading an article right after the google evidence came out that prosecutors had had the google evidence since early October 2008. I have looked and looked for that article (I want to think I read it on WRAL.com) and can't find it. It's driving me nuts. I want to know for sure, too.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lib's mom For This Useful Post:
  #44  
Old 05-09-2011, 10:44 PM
Madeleine74's Avatar
Madeleine74 Madeleine74 is online now
From The Dept of Redundancy Dept
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,612
Can't believe I forgot one of the most famous cases that's been followed/argued for 33+ years. Jeffrey MacDonald (NC). Convicted in 1979 for killing his pregnant wife and 2 young daughters in 1970 and has been serving a life sentence. Was the subject of a famous book by Joe McGinnis and that book was made into a TV Movie starring Gary Cole.

Yep, he's had people arguing his innocence ever since, to no avail. And his case was long before there was DNA testing available. In that case there was a lot of blood evidence. Each of the victims and MacDonald had different blood types, so investigators were able to determine who was where in the apt based on blood type. MacDonald's story didn't match the blood evidence.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:
  #45  
Old 05-09-2011, 10:46 PM
sunshine05 sunshine05 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by lib's mom View Post
I have a memory of reading an article right after the google evidence came out that prosecutors had had the google evidence since early October 2008. I have looked and looked for that article (I want to think I read it on WRAL.com) and can't find it. It's driving me nuts. I want to know for sure, too.
I'll keep searching too.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sunshine05 For This Useful Post:
  #46  
Old 05-09-2011, 10:47 PM
sunshine05 sunshine05 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
Can't believe I forgot one of the most famous cases that's been followed/argued for 33+ years. Jeffrey MacDonald (NC). Convicted in 1979 for killing his pregnant wife and 2 young daughters in 1970 and has been serving a life sentence. Was the subject of a famous book by Joe McGinnis and that book was made into a TV Movie starring Gary Cole.

Yep, he's had people arguing his innocence ever since, to no avail. And his case was long before there was DNA testing available.
Okay, but this thread is about discussion of the BC case and lingering questions pertaining to that. How does that case fit in here?
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sunshine05 For This Useful Post:
  #47  
Old 05-09-2011, 11:02 PM
gritguy gritguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 1,012
My recollection is that the ex fiancé bc couldn't remember the name of even though he was engaged to her just before starting a relationship with NC filed an affidavit in the custody case but did not submit testimony in the murder trial. I do not know if the child custody ruling relied on that affidavit in any way.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-09-2011, 11:08 PM
jumpstreet jumpstreet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
No, because it was more than just the physical presence of the router. There was no record of the call on the Cisco IT system.
Okay, but I thought Giralt explained how the call could (theoretically) be spoofed even if the router wasn't connected to Cisco IT at that particular time.
[ Router (set up as standalone device), with FXO card, could originate a call on the landline, either via remotely controlled script, or via automated script... ]

Establishing the presence of such a router in the home on 7/11 wouldn't prove this was done, but certainly (if said router remained unaccounted for, and unexplained) would be potentially compelling I would think...
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-09-2011, 11:14 PM
jumpstreet jumpstreet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
Okay, but this thread is about discussion of the BC case and lingering questions pertaining to that. How does that case [ J. Macdonald] fit in here?
I think it was just in response to an earlier post of other State of NC cases where folks have been convicted, yet where there remained an ongoing public dialog as to whether or not they were wrongly convicted. (Similar to how it seems this case will unfold...)

It's a good question, and JM is indeed an example of same (along with several others mentioned previously I think...).

IIRC JM is also somewhat unique in that he was actually acquitted once (though in a military tribunal), then later convicted (in civilian court). [ double-jeapordy, shmeapordy...]
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-09-2011, 11:14 PM
momto3kids's Avatar
momto3kids momto3kids is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by gritguy View Post
My recollection is that the ex fiancé bc couldn't remember the name of even though he was engaged to her just before starting a relationship with NC filed an affidavit in the custody case but did not submit testimony in the murder trial. I do not know if the child custody ruling relied on that affidavit in any way.
GG...I didn't hear anything during the custody hearing or her name mentioned. Again BC NEVER uttered a word or declared his love for his daughters either to save having them taken out of the country. BUT....his affidavit states he told them he loved them all the time.

Here's his ex's affidavit:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local...3092834786.pdf
__________________
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." ~Mark Twain~
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to momto3kids For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GUILTY x 3 !!! - Verdict discussion Kimster Sheri, Garrett and Gavin Coleman 61 05-10-2011 06:59 AM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!