The trip to the store

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pepper

Former Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
4,777
Reaction score
15
OK Christine, trying to help here. Lets discuss the early morning store purchases here. Christine, move whatever posts you think may apply, OK?
 
This is where it began. Post #186, thread #1, Nancy Cooper.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2381729#post2381729

momto3kids:
"I have a strong feeling her husband Brad has something to do with this. The police are in possession of a video with Brad early Saturday morning at a local store. He told the police he went to get milk and bread at 6am. The video has Brad buying detergent with bleach and/or bleach actually purchased at 4am. redacted statement I feel this is a cruical piece of evidence indicating something had occured. As I searched with my children yesterday in the construction areas along Kildaire Farm Rd and in the Bluffs Nature park in the pouring rain, I kept hope to hear her yell out for help that the rain would stimulate her."
 
FWIW, there was some information redacted by the mods. For security reasons, I believe.

JMHO
fran
 
Please keep in mind, that this is just a post by an anonymous person. IT IS NOT FACT, IT IS NOT EVIDENCE. Just because a statement is posted here does not make that a factual statement. The police have not confirmed that they were even there at that store to view or pick up a security video. There is no reason to believe that the investigators in charge would confirm this information to a relative of an employee, yet not confirm it in a press conference.
 
fran said:
This is where it began. Post #186, thread #1, Nancy Cooper.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2381729#post2381729

momto3kids:
"I have a strong feeling her husband Brad has something to do with this. The police are in possession of a video with Brad early Saturday morning at a local store. He told the police he went to get milk and bread at 6am. The video has Brad buying detergent with bleach and/or bleach actually purchased at 4am. redacted statement I feel this is a cruical piece of evidence indicating something had occured. As I searched with my children yesterday in the construction areas along Kildaire Farm Rd and in the Bluffs Nature park in the pouring rain, I kept hope to hear her yell out for help that the rain would stimulate her."
Click to expand...

I guess the question here is how does mom know what is on the video?:confused:
 
Thank Goodness, EXACTLY, finally someone who is thinking logically. How would she know? AND what kind of mother would betray their child's confidence in sharing that information, endanger their child's job and their child's employer's reputation by blabbing that information?
 
The poster does not deserved to be impugned. YOU don't know what was redacted there. Several posters who were here then do remember.

I believe the poster based on what was originally posted and the actions they went to afterwards since it was obvious they weren't aware of the widespread readers on these charts.
 
I'm new on the forum and I also happen to live in Cary, about 4 mi from the community. I am following this case very closely and hope our PD is able to resolve it and that the perp will be brought to justice quickly.

I have my suspicions on who did it, based on what I've read and learned so far.

One thought on the detergent w/bleach (if that's what was purchased): clothes w/blood or other DNA material may have been stained and perhaps that was why the detergent was purchased.

Although yes, if you're going to make sure you destroy DNA evidence then burning all items to ashes is really the best way to ensure complete/total destruction.
 
I absolutely DO KNOW what was redacted, I read it immediately after it was posted and reread it numerous times after that, as it was being referred to by other posters. It was quite some time after the initial post before any changes were made. I believe that it was not until after it began to be quoted by some print reporters that there was any information removed. I am in no way meaning to be saying anything rude about the poster, only that it is a POST, not a FACT. Anyone here is free to believe it or not as they so choose.
 
raeann said:
I absolutely DO KNOW what was redacted, I read it immediately after it was posted and reread it numerous times after that, as it was being referred to by other posters. It was quite some time after the initial post before any changes were made. I believe that it was not until after it began to be quoted by some print reporters that there was any information removed. I am in no way meaning to be saying anything rude about the poster, only that it is a POST, not a FACT. Anyone here is free to believe it or not as they so choose.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's why I didn't mention it in my list of known facts on the other thread.
 
If Brad went to the store at 4am, who was with the girls?
Did he leave them tucked in bed--ALONE-- while he went to the store? :{
 
philamena said:
If Brad went to the store at 4am, who was with the girls?
Did he leave them tucked in bed--ALONE-- while he went to the store? :{
Click to expand...

yes he probably did. I believe Nancy was already deceased by then...and probably dumped at the site.

Now...it will be interesting if the crime technicians were able to extract any dirt or mud off the tires of whatever car was used to transport Nancy's body (if in fact BC is the perp). Cause a development that was just 'cut' for roads would be all dirt. And if there had been any dew or condensation then car tires should have picked up some of that same dirt, and possibly the undercarriage of the vehicle, depending. I look forward to hearing if any of that kind of evidence exists, as well as any shoe prints, tire prints, etc, etc.
 
AND what kind of mother would betray their child's confidence in sharing that information, endanger their child's job and their child's employer's reputation by blabbing that information?
Click to expand...

But, you did say something about the poster here. And if you remember the whole post, this part is covered.
 
SleuthyGal said:
yes he probably did. I believe Nancy was already deceased by then...and probably dumped at the site.

Now...it will be interesting if the crime technicians were able to extract any dirt or mud off the tires of whatever car was used to transport Nancy's body (if in fact BC is the perp). Cause a development that was just 'cut' for roads would be all dirt. And if there had been any dew or condensation then car tires should have picked up some of that same dirt, and possibly the undercarriage of the vehicle, depending. I look forward to hearing if any of that kind of evidence exists, as well as any shoe prints, tire prints, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

See my thread "The car"
 
SleuthyGal said:
yes he probably did. I believe Nancy was already deceased by then...and probably dumped at the site.

Now...it will be interesting if the crime technicians were able to extract any dirt or mud off the tires of whatever car was used to transport Nancy's body (if in fact BC is the perp). Cause a development that was just 'cut' for roads would be all dirt. And if there had been any dew or condensation then car tires should have picked up some of that same dirt, and possibly the undercarriage of the vehicle, depending. I look forward to hearing if any of that kind of evidence exists, as well as any shoe prints, tire prints, etc, etc.
Click to expand...


There were still shots of LE checking the undercarriage of the vehicle in the driveway. I'm sure they got what they needed.

These guys are never as smart as they think.

JMHO
fran

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/photos/story/1142714.html
Photos checking underneath car.
 
Thank you for posting that. I think I'd feel better if they took the vehicles into a secure PD area for thorough testing...and perhaps they already did or will? I think there could be a lot of forensic evidence in any car that was used to transport her body.
 
EnvoyDriver, thank you, you have proved my point very well. What I said is a POST, and an opinion, a comment, a thought, etc. That does not in any way make it a FACT.
 
FWIW, I know that anyone can be who they want on the internet and we often times need to be careful of people coming in and giving alleged, 'inside' information.

I would like to speak up for the poster who gave us that bit of information, however. She was a new member and IIRC, that was her very first post in Websleuths. Like someone else said, she didn't realize the wide viewership of Websleuths. I'm sure if she'd known, she would NOT have given that tidbit. But she did and by the time she realized her error, LOL, she saw it on tv and it was too late.

Anyway, IF one doesn't want to use that bit of information as part of the overall investigation because it didn't come from a reliable news source, that's fine. As for me, I'm not going to look a 'gift horse in the mouth,' and I'll use it in MY personal reasoning. I think most Websleuthers will probably agree with me.

Also, FWIW, this is the exact reason I personally NEVER get involved in discussions of cases that I personally know about, like from real life acquaintances, etc. It is too difficult to hold your tongue when you know an inside scoop! Course, that's just me. ;)

JMHO
fran

PS....LOL, by my last statement, I guess you could say that whenever you see me, 'fran,' participating in a case discussion, I'm as clueless as anyone else. :crosseyed: :D
 
fran said:
<SNIP>.

I would like to speak up for the poster who gave us that bit of information, however. She was a new member and IIRC, that was her very first post in Websleuths. Like someone else said, she didn't realize the wide viewership of Websleuths. I'm sure if she'd known, she would NOT have given that tidbit. But she did and by the time she realized her error, LOL, she saw it on tv and it was too late.
Click to expand...

Fran,

It could be that you are completely correct, but I had a slightly different take on it. I felt more that she realized she had given out information that someone she was close to had some information that was important to the investigation, or knew of the information. I have edited a previous post to remove some information so that I would not be divulging the contents that I believed concerned the original poster.

CyberPro
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 213 more.
Total: 3,775 (members: 214, guests: 3,561)

Online statistics

Members online
214
Guests online
3,561
Total visitors
3,775
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,137
Messages
17,963,882
Members
228,697
Latest member
flintinsects
Back
Top