Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #16

2Daughters1Dog said:

What is the angle of this "he didn't call her parents to report her missing"?

Per his affidavit: she left. she didn't return on time. she was known to stay gone with friends. once he had concern, he loaded up kids and went looking. when he got home at 3 pm(?) the cops were there as a friend had said she was missing.

Would you really expect him to call Canada between say noon and 3 pm? To place that high of a priority on it?

Click to expand...

See, this is WHERE he gets himself in trouble. IF he were telling the TRUTH, his statements would be consistant.

On one hand he says in an affidavit, Nancy was known to be gone for long periods of time without contacting him nor explaining where she'd been when she returned.

YET, I heard him with my OWN ears, say when she went jogging, she never took her purse or cell phone. She would be gone about 1 hour, 2 hours at best (not exact words, but close). But NEVER more than 2 hours.

When you tell the TRUTH, you don't NEED to remember what you said previously because when asked AGAIN, your answer will be the same.

Details

JMHO
fran

fran said:

See, this is WHERE he gets himself in trouble. IF he were telling the TRUTH, his statements would be consistant.

On one hand he says in an affidavit, Nancy was known to be gone for long periods of time without contacting him nor explaining where she'd been when she returned.

YET, I heard him with my OWN ears, say when she went jogging, she never took her purse or cell phone. She would be gone about 1 hour, 2 hours at best (not exact words, but close). But NEVER more than 2 hours.

When you tell the TRUTH, you don't NEED to remember what you said previously because when asked AGAIN, your answer will be the same.

Details

JMHO
fran

Click to expand...

But Fran, when he said she would be gone for long periods of time, was he only referring to jogging? I seem to remember him saying she went out at night.

So, maybe she was only never gone more than 2 hours jogging, but maybe it was customary for her other activities.

If both statements were in regards to jogging, I definitely see the inconsistency.

FullDisclosure said:

I found this on their site:

http://www.kurtzandblum.com/CM/Custom/TOCDivorceFamilyLaw.asp

Click to expand...

Thanks! I had only looked at the individual attorney profiles.

reddress58 said:

Fran and others,

Given the situation before Nancy's death, these two were in the process of dissolving their marriage. That was no secret to anybody. The love had died; she was going back to Canada, and he was moving on with his life. I doubt very much if she had died of natural causes Brad would have made much of a fuss about who got Nancy's remains or where she was buried. And I also doubt he would have put up much of a fight about the children going to Canada to attend a service with their mother's family members.

The only reason he took the passports to begin with (preventing the children from going to Canada) was in fear of Nancy fleeing with them and therefore getting more favorable custody provisions. He admits her attorney told her that would be the case. Remember: this was ALL about money...as in an unfavorable separation agreement as it stood at TOD. Unfavorable for Brad.

If she had died of natural causes, there would be no custody battle...so kids would go to Canada with family to bury Nancy. Brad may not have attended EVEN THEN! Does this make sense?? So, to answer Fran's question, he didn't/doesn't care enough about Nancy to give a hoot about her ashes, where she's buried or anything else. But I do believe he wants his children.

Click to expand...

Buuuttttttt!!!!!!!!

BRAD said he LOVED NANCY in his affidavit. THEY were TRYING TO WORK IT OUT, is what he said.

WHICH time is he lying, either by words or actions? He either LOVED her and would have attended her services OR he did NOT love her and was well rid of her, WHICH would mean he was lying in the affidavit.

Oh.....about the passport situation. During March and early April, Brad had told Nancy she could leave, take the kids with you to Canada and he never wanted to see ANY of them again. (I don't have exact links, but I KNOW it's in there somewhere).

Nancy sees an attorney for LEGAL separation and the FIRST draft of SEPARATION 'apparently' was rejected by SOMEONE, as the one we have in our Legal Documents thread is the SECOND draft. The second draft, IIRC, was dated April 18. It was shortly after, when Nancy emailed a copy to Brad. THAT is when Brad went to his own attorney, started being 'nice,' took the passports so Nancy couldn't leave with the children, the friends changed the Nancy's going away party to something else.

IMHO, the only 'fear' Brad had of Nancy taking off to Canada had absolutely NOTHING to do with his WANTING the children. It had EVERYTHING to do with him having to PAY. It was about the MONEY. It was HIS and he NO LONGER was willing to share it with Nancy and the girls. He proved that when he started doling out the 'allowance.' He proved that, when he began docking her when she earned extra.

THIS is and was always about BRAD and what HE wants. It was NEVER about Nancy to him. IMHO, now Nancy is ERASED and Brad's problems are solved..................imho....................or so HE thought.

Brad has a degree, but in all that course work, didn't teach him how to get away with murder. Which, he'll soon find out, IMHO.

Details.

JMHO
fran

EntreNous said:

Not arguing, just trying to clear up what exactly JA said in the 911 call. Someone who pondered how JA would have known to tell dispatch that NC's purse was in her car. That's why I re-checked the 911 tape. The truth is JA didn't say that in that call.

Click to expand...

I conceeded with no argument.

But I also wanted to clear up - the purse was indeed inside the vehicle.

jumpstreet said:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3337583/

Click to expand...

I didn't think BC was a POI or named a suspect. If their client is innocent then why worry what the records show with these 3 subpoena's...ME, HT, TWC?:waitasec:

If it was for the civil custody action these would not be who I would be sending subpoena's to. IMO

I think this is putting the buggy before the horse, especially when someone is innocent.

momto3kids said:

I didn't think BC was a POI or named a suspect. If their client is innocent then why worry what the records show with these 3 subpoena's...ME, HT, TWC?:waitasec:

Click to expand...

excellent point! What's he got to defend???

reddress58 said:

The part about the subpoena of the HT video is VERY interesting! Sounds like Brad is defending the 4:20 AM accusation!

Click to expand...

IMHO, he's most likely trying to figure out how he can have 'reasonable doubt' that it is NOT him. He KNOWS who it is, he just doesn't want everyone else to KNOW.:waitasec:

Remember, in BRAD'S affidavit, or one of them, he stated, (not exact words but the meaning is clear) he went to the STORE WELL AFTER DAYLIGHT.

It's NOT daylight at 4:20 a.m. He's got to THINK UP an excuse for that one or ATTACK the evidence.:bang:

JMHO
fran

momto3kids said:

I didn't think BC was a POI or named a suspect. If their client is innocent then why worry what the records show with these 3 subpoena's...ME, HT, TWC?:waitasec:

If it was for the civil custody action these would not be who I would be sending subpoena's to. IMO

I think this is putting the buggy before the horse, especially when someone is innocent.

Click to expand...

I'd think of it as being proactive. And, I think the ME's thing is the same as before. The motion to quash is more than a week old.

I'd think either way they need to be prepared, whether it's for the custody or for criminal. Better to have your ducks in a row IMO.

reddress58 said:

Back to the purse; something I've been thinking about: Nancy comes home from the party sometime after midnight. NC & BC argue and the intensity esculates. Whether from fear or anger, Nancy decides to leave the house and maybe go stay with a friend. She grabs her purse, runs to the car, and Brad follows. He pulls her out of the car and either strangles her or hits her with a blunt object that is close at hand in the garage.

It is eaisier to clean a concrete garage floor than fabric from bed linens and carpet...thus his willingness to allow LE to search the house. (knowing they'd find nothing in the house; and the garage was cleaned thoroughly) The laundry run could be for his and NC's clothes. He could possibly use it to clean the garage floor, also, in case there were blood/and or body fluids resulting from the struggle. This would explain her purse in the car.

Click to expand...

Good Job!reddress:

VERY plausible scenario.

fran

Wyn said:

Right around two o'clock I was cutting through Lochmere on my way home from Crossroads. Saw the channel 11 (ABC) news truck at the light on Cary Parkway at Lochmere. They turned right onto Lochmere Drive and then turned into the section of Lochmere where the Cooper house is located. Wonder if they're just going by to get some updated location film or if they'll be doing a report on the news later?

It's sad to drive by there and see the entrance sign to that section of the subdivision. Has a big white bow on it.

Click to expand...

Could be someone saw BC on the ladder painting and wanted it filmed or checking the SUV for correct stickers...

momto3kids said:

I didn't think BC was a POI or named a suspect. If their client is innocent then why worry what the records show with these 3 subpoena's...ME, HT, TWC?:waitasec:

If it was for the civil custody action these would not be who I would be sending subpoena's to. IMO

I think this is putting the buggy before the horse

Click to expand...

I see your point, Mom, but in the court of public opinion, the horse has left the barn, so to speak. Brad is in a difficult spot (guilty or not!) because while LE can (and should) gather evidence/information to build a case, when Brad does this to prepare for a defense (because, as stated here--he hasn't been named, but...) it makes him look guilty to many. So, since most folks seem to have formed their opinions already, what does he really have to lose by gathering information/evidence that he may need to mount a defnese?

Just a thought.

carolinalady said:

I'd think of it as being proactive. And, I think the ME's thing is the same as before. The motion to quash is more than a week old.

I'd think either way they need to be prepared, whether it's for the custody or for criminal. Better to have your ducks in a row IMO.

Click to expand...

CarolinaLady, you said what I did better (and FASTER!) Sorry I'm so slow....can't keep up....oy.

Kind of ironic when you think about it that Brad isn't going to mind paying alllll that money to his legal team to fight for his freedom (what will surely amount to the residual value on his house, cars, 401K, savings, etc), yet he certainly minded giving Nancy her freedom and half the $$$ to support her and his children....minded enough to possibly kill her....which ensured in the end that all the money would go to legal counsel.

IRONICAL, as we like to say.

momto3kids said:

I didn't think BC was a POI or named a suspect. If their client is innocent then why worry what the records show with these 3 subpoena's...ME, HT, TWC?:waitasec:

If it was for the civil custody action these would not be who I would be sending subpoena's to. IMO

I think this is putting the buggy before the horse

Click to expand...

JMO -

TWC could be used to argue he made phone calls to Nancy when he was away. Given some of the allegations that he left and never called, I can see this for the custody case.

HT - why would he need to subpeona HT when he could just get his own records reagarding his purchases between 6 and 7 - unless of course he didn't use the VIC card. Which is possible and the only reason he would have to have a subpeona. But what bearing this has on him being a good father or not is highly questionable. Again JMO - he was trying to prove two things - he was at HT buying things and that Nancy called him at 640 for juice. Bottom line - this has nothing to do with custody or parenthood. He was addressing one comment alone - Nancy did not go running as stated in the Ex Parte. This was all about Brad and had nothing to do with those children.

ME - the same - all Brad wanted was a description of the clothing found with the body so his lawyer could say see, she was dressed ti run and she went running. TOD is NOT listed in autopsy reports issued from Chapel Hill ME's office and shame on Brad's lawyer if he was not aware of that. IMO this too was about nothing but Brad and nothing to do with those children

He was addressing an insinuation which in reality could mean several things. Nancy was attacked just outside the house, Nancy went somewhere else, a friend picked Nancy up and so on. Brad and lawyer got all puffed up and ASSUMED the insinuation was that he murdered his wife. I wonder why that would be the first choice of reaction for that simple statement.

SleuthyGal said:

excellent point! What's he got to defend???

Click to expand...

TWC, now that one is interesting, phone and internet. Can TWC, HT or ME tell us how he is as a parent? BC isn't a POI or suspect, right?

Snip

fran said:

Remember, in BRAD'S affidavit, or one of them, he stated, (not exact words but the meaning is clear) he went to the STORE WELL AFTER DAYLIGHT.

Click to expand...

Yep, in his affidavit #169 in reference to the 6:45am purchase of detergent, he says "well after dawn".

TWC probably supplies his high speed Internet connection and he probably needs those records to prove phone calls and/or data traffic/email. VoIP runs over high speed lines.

carolinalady said:

Yep, in his affidavit #169 in reference to the 6:45am purchase of detergent, he says "well after dawn".

Click to expand...

Well he exaggerates a little bit because it's still kind of dark outside between 6am and 6:30am. So if he purchased detergent at 6:45am, what was he purchasing at 6:15am? Was that the juice/milk run?

SleuthyGal said:

Well he exaggerates a little bit because it's still kind of dark outside between 6am and 6:30am. So if he purchased detergent at 6:45am, what was he purchasing at 6:15am? Was that the juice/milk run?

Click to expand...

Yes, milk at 6:15, detergent & juice at 6:45 (remember he says Nancy called him at 6:40 about the juice).

ETA, it's pretty light at 6:30am (that's when I go running).

Also added, checked the almanac, sunrise was 6:08am on 7/12.