Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #8

[christine2448]

Please continue GENERAL discussions here. Look around Nancy has her own forum, there are several threads started on specific topics to try and stay organized.


Links to previous and similar threads can be found toward the bottom of the page.


ATTENTION POSTERS! As you members know this forum is extremely active w/old and new posters and a TON of guests . We expect you all to STAY ON TOPIC, which is Nancy and things related to her case. I made an off topic/chit chat thread to satisfy those who feel the need. This rule will be enforced from this point on. This is why we made a forum for Nancy, to discuss her case, not ourselves or other issues. TIA.

Newbies

I am sad such a tragedy is bringing us all together.

I advise everyone to read the RULES of WS, Long and Short Version .

 

[panthera]

Thank you christine!

Family establishes memorial fund for Nancy Cooper

CARY (WTVD) -- The family of murdered Cary woman Nancy Cooper has established a memorial fund in her name.


Donations can be made to the Nancy Cooper Memorial Fund.
Send c/o RBC Bank, 101 Advent Court, Cary, N.C. 27518.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6274948

 

[Taximom]

Brother Grant Cooper had personal and business links on the isabellacooper link page.

Direct link to resume if interested.
http://www2.mhc.ab.ca/users/gcooper/job/Resume.htm

I didn't look at the personal links. It's old though (updated in 2003?)

 

[melbel]

Thanks to all who gave me a warm welcome last night. I've been around a long time, just don't post because I'm always trying to catch up with you guys.

NOTE: Geraldo At Large might be interesting to watch tonight. During the Greta show last night when the reporter asked Brad's lawyer about "Heather" and "Marianne" or "Marion,", I noticed Geraldo's brother, Craig Rivera, at the head of the pack of reporters asking the questions. So I expect he has run down the rumor by now and Geraldo is never shy about reporting on rumors.

Geraldo's on Fox News at 8 Eastern or 9 Central.

 

[Coolmomof4]

Brother Grant Cooper had personal and business links on the isabellacooper link page.

Direct link to resume if interested.
http://www2.mhc.ab.ca/users/gcooper/job/Resume.htm

I didn't look at the personal links. It's old though (updated in 2003?)

I think it said updated in 05. I just find it odd and kind of sad that on a family web site named after Bella, he would be posting al of his training stuff. Didn't he have enough internet web sites all about himself to take care of that?? And it is interesting that we don't see Nancy's training plastered all over the internet. Guess she was more humble/modest about herself.

 

[sues]

AS a newbie, I have some questions about how LE *normally* operates.

Let me preface this with that I think that BC is the most likely culprit based soley on his apparently narcissistic personality and the fact they were having serious marital problems (and no other alleged evidence). I don't think *we* have enough info to know for sure, though. so here are my questions:

1. What does it really mean when LE says they think something is an isolated case? If I were to take their word, it would lead me to believe they had strong evidence against a particular person.

But don't they sometimes just say things to avoid public panic (like when the CDC said anthrax spores couldn't leak out of an evelope--complete BS).

Or sometimes they say it to try to intimidate someone. We had a bunch of laptops stolen at work once. In an interview with me, LE said they had very strong evidence it was one of my coworkers. Turns out, that coworker wasn't involved AT ALL (perps found selling on ebay) and they had no reason to suspect him (other than that he is african american, imo--racists jerks). So they just said that to try to bring out more evidence against him or to get him to confess.

So, how much do we believe LE when they say they have reason to believe it was "isolated"?

2. OK, if BC is guilty, what would it take to convict him? Forensic evidence might do it, but he had a LONG time to clean. What if they can't get any? Possible if she was, say, strangled. How much circumstantial evidence would it take? What info would be needed? Would answers to these questions be enough?
a. Nancy having a running schedule where Saturday was an off day?
b. kids noticing daddy cleaning a lot on Saturday (though, if the 4 yo wasn't questioned yet, she will not be able to recall specific activities that day reliably--even if BC didn't brainwash her)?
c. possible carwash middle of the night Sat?
d. 4 am bleach story confirmed?

What would it take?

 

[panthera]

Thanks to all who gave me a warm welcome last night. I've been around a long time, just don't post because I'm always trying to catch up with you guys.

NOTE: Geraldo At Large might be interesting to watch tonight. During the Greta show last night when the reporter asked Brad's lawyer about "Heather" and "Marianne" or "Marion,", I noticed Geraldo's brother, Craig Rivera, at the head of the pack of reporters asking the questions. So I expect he has run down the rumor by now and Geraldo is never shy about reporting on rumors.

Geraldo's on Fox News at 8 Eastern or 9 Central.

Hi and welcome from me too! :seeya: I always try to watch Geraldo's program and I too noticed Craig was there yesterday. I'm hoping Geraldo has a lot of coverage of Nancy's murder tonight.

 

[curiositycat]

AS a newbie, I have some questions about how LE *normally* operates.

Let me preface this with that I think that BC is the most likely culprit based soley on his apparently narcissistic personality and the fact they were having serious marital problems (and no other alleged evidence). I don't think *we* have enough info to know for sure, though. so here are my questions:

1. What does it really mean when LE says they think something is an isolated case? If I were to take their word, it would lead me to believe they had strong evidence against a particular person.

But don't they sometimes just say things to avoid public panic (like when the CDC said anthrax spores couldn't leak out of an evelope--complete BS).

Or sometimes they say it to try to intimidate someone. We had a bunch of laptops stolen at work once. In an interview with me, LE said they had very strong evidence it was one of my coworkers. Turns out, that coworker wasn't involved AT ALL (perps found selling on ebay) and they had no reason to suspect him (other than that he is african american, imo--racists jerks). So they just said that to try to bring out more evidence against him or to get him to confess.

So, how much do we believe LE when they say they have reason to believe it was "isolated"?

2. OK, if BC is guilty, what would it take to convict him? Forensic evidence might do it, but he had a LONG time to clean. What if they can't get any? Possible if she was, say, strangled. How much circumstantial evidence would it take? What info would be needed? Would answers to these questions be enough?
a. Nancy having a running schedule where Saturday was an off day?
b. kids noticing daddy cleaning a lot on Saturday (though, if the 4 yo wasn't questioned yet, she will not be able to recall specific activities that day reliably--even if BC didn't brainwash her)?
c. possible carwash middle of the night Sat?
d. 4 am bleach story confirmed?

What would it take?

Hi Sues, welcome to WS's
I think BC is making a BIG mistake in not going to any memorial for Nancy. In the case recently of Neil Entwistle he was tried and convicted largely on circumstantial evidence. The evidence of the searches on his computer was really damning. People stated at the trial that he was an extremely loving father, ect. That didn't matter to the jury. The biggest mistake he made, in my opinion, was running back to the UK and not attending the services.
If it is proven that BC was in the midst of an affair, that he did in fact purchase bleach at 4am and the fact that he let his kids go to the in-laws custody without a fight of any sort it doesn't look good.
One would think that jurors would need strong evidence. That hasn't been the case in a lot of these cases.

 

[Pepper]

AS a newbie, I have some questions about how LE *normally* operates.

Let me preface this with that I think that BC is the most likely culprit based soley on his apparently narcissistic personality and the fact they were having serious marital problems (and no other alleged evidence). I don't think *we* have enough info to know for sure, though. so here are my questions:

1. What does it really mean when LE says they think something is an isolated case? If I were to take their word, it would lead me to believe they had strong evidence against a particular person.

But don't they sometimes just say things to avoid public panic (like when the CDC said anthrax spores couldn't leak out of an evelope--complete BS).

Or sometimes they say it to try to intimidate someone. We had a bunch of laptops stolen at work once. In an interview with me, LE said they had very strong evidence it was one of my coworkers. Turns out, that coworker wasn't involved AT ALL (perps found selling on ebay) and they had no reason to suspect him (other than that he is african american, imo--racists jerks). So they just said that to try to bring out more evidence against him or to get him to confess.

So, how much do we believe LE when they say they have reason to believe it was "isolated"?

2. OK, if BC is guilty, what would it take to convict him? Forensic evidence might do it, but he had a LONG time to clean. What if they can't get any? Possible if she was, say, strangled. How much circumstantial evidence would it take? What info would be needed? Would answers to these questions be enough?
a. Nancy having a running schedule where Saturday was an off day?
b. kids noticing daddy cleaning a lot on Saturday (though, if the 4 yo wasn't questioned yet, she will not be able to recall specific activities that day reliably--even if BC didn't brainwash her)?
c. possible carwash middle of the night Sat?
d. 4 am bleach story confirmed?

What would it take?

From all my years as a forensic expert (watching CSI! ) I think it is nearly impossible to remove all trace evidence. Seems like some microscopic evidence remains no matter how thorough the cleaning.

Since we don't know the cause of death, we also don't know if a weapon was involved - knife, candlestick, baseball bat. Recovery of a weapon would be crucial. If she were strangled or smothered that would be more difficult, but not impossible.

There were reports of scratches on Brad's body. How fresh were the scratches? Did her fingernails contain skin residue from scratching Brad?

The jogging story - see Nancy, the jogger thread.

Car wash? Good one. Also forensics in the car - see The car thread

Eye witness testimony - what did the neighbors see or hear that night or the next morning.

Surveilance tapes - the store, the car wash

The timeline - we haven't heard much about this yet, but I think we will. What time did she leave the party? Did she drive or walk? How long did it take her to get home? At what time did Brad first have contact with someone outside the home, by phone, email, in person, etc.? What was the exact time the 911 call was placed? By whom? Again, did the neighbors see or hear Brad during the night or before the PD call was made? If so, what time?

All this is what they are investigating as we speak. He couldn't have covered all his tracks that well.

If I were Brad's attorney, I'd be advising him to plea out, cuz he'll be wearing steel bracelets soon.

ETA: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention computer records. What time was he online? What sites did he visit? I know he is an internet wizard, so he may know how to get around this, but in his panicked state, he may have been careless.

 

[panthera]

Hi Sues, welcome to WS's
I think BC is making a BIG mistake in not going to any memorial for Nancy. In the case recently of Neil Entwistle he was tried and convicted largely on circumstantial evidence. The evidence of the searches on his computer was really damning. People stated at the trial that he was an extremely loving father, ect. That didn't matter to the jury. The biggest mistake he made, in my opinion, was running back to the UK and not attending the services.
If it is proven that BC was in the midst of an affair, that he did in fact purchase bleach at 4am and the fact that he let his kids go to the in-laws custody without a fight of any sort it doesn't look good.
One would think that jurors would need strong evidence. That hasn't been the case in a lot of these cases.

I too watched Entwistle's trial and agree. Another example is Scott Peterson. So much here will depend on how Nancy was killed, for example, if she was strangled there would be little or no forensic evidence left behind in the house. If she was bludgeoned or stabbed, I really would be shocked if he didn't get rid of the weapon, or if the crime actually took place inside the living area of the house. I think him not fighting the custody with Nancy's family is a sign he wasn't really interested in the children to begin with. If an affair proves true, that's another sign he wanted out of the marriage/family. Both could be motives, not to have to pay alimony or child support. Anyone know about laws regarding child support if the children return to Canada?

 

[IMHO63]

From all my years as a forensic expert (watching CSI! ) I think it is nearly impossible to remove all trace evidence. Seems like some microscopic evidence remains no matter how thorough the cleaning.

Since we don't know the cause of death, we also don't know if a weapon was involved - knife, candlestick, baseball bat. Recovery of a weapon would be crucial. If she were strangled or smothered that would be more difficult, but not impossible.

There were reports of scratches on Brad's body. How fresh were the scratches? Did her fingernails contain skin residue from scratching Brad?

The jogging story - see Nancy, the jogger thread.

Car wash? Good one. Also forensics in the car - see The car thread

Eye witness testimony - what did the neighbors see or hear that night or the next morning.

Surveilance tapes - the store, the car wash

The timeline - we haven't heard much about this yet, but I think we will. What time did she leave the party? Did she drive or walk? How long did it take her to get home? At what time did Brad first have contact with someone outside the home, by phone, email, in person, etc.? What was the exact time the 911 call was placed? By whom? Again, did the neighbors see or hear Brad during the night or before the PD call was made? If so, what time?

All this is what they are investigating as we speak. He couldn't have covered all his tracks that well.

If I were Brad's attorney, I'd be advising him to plea out, cuz he'll be wearing steel bracelets soon.

ETA: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention computer records. What time was he online? What sites did he visit? I know he is an internet wizard, so he may know how to get around this, but in his panicked state, he may have been careless.

Is the carwash just speculation? I don't remember reading anything about it.

 

[panthera]

Is the carwash just speculation? I don't remember reading anything about it.

I think so. I haven't heard anything either, but he sure had plenty of time to have it cleaned and detailed ~ if he did kill Nancy and transport her body to where she was found. I wonder if LE has checked local car washes?

 

[IMHO63]

I think so. I haven't heard anything either, but he sure had plenty of time to have it cleaned and detailed ~ if he did kill Nancy and transport her body to where she was found. I wonder if LE has checked local car washes?

I was just wondering because there just happens to be a carwash that would be very convenient for him to use. It is actually in the same area of buildings where the girls went to preschool, which is only a couple of miles from their home. I don't believe, however, that it has any cameras. I have not noticed any when I have used it.

 

[citygirl]

I think so. I haven't heard anything either, but he sure had plenty of time to have it cleaned and detailed ~ if he did kill Nancy and transport her body to where she was found. I wonder if LE has checked local car washes?

I just visited that in the "car" thread. I'm wondering if they have cameras in place?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

If you will take a look around the forum set up for this case, you will notice many new threads (more to come and feel free to post your own). It would be great if you guys would go back into the old general topic threads and bring forward any posts, links, or information pertaining to the specific topics so we can organize without missing anything!

This case is growing rapidly as more comes out and will explode if/when a suspect is named and arrested. To follow the case until justice for Nancy is served, you will find having the reference material at a glance to be a benefit. We can use all the help we can get to this end! Thanks!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=165

 

[panthera]

I was just wondering because there just happens to be a carwash that would be very convenient for him to use. It is actually in the same area of buildings where the girls went to preschool, which is only a couple of miles from their home. I don't believe, however, that it has any cameras. I have not noticed any when I have used it.

Is that a full service one where employees clean out the car? Just curious!

 

[sues]

Hi Sues, welcome to WS's
I think BC is making a BIG mistake in not going to any memorial for Nancy. In the case recently of Neil Entwistle he was tried and convicted largely on circumstantial evidence. The evidence of the searches on his computer was really damning. People stated at the trial that he was an extremely loving father, ect. That didn't matter to the jury. The biggest mistake he made, in my opinion, was running back to the UK and not attending the services.
If it is proven that BC was in the midst of an affair, that he did in fact purchase bleach at 4am and the fact that he let his kids go to the in-laws custody without a fight of any sort it doesn't look good.
One would think that jurors would need strong evidence. That hasn't been the case in a lot of these cases.

See, too me, his not attending doesn't really "look bad". I'm not a private person particularly, but I do tend to want to be alone when I'm sad. If something tragic happened to someone I loved, I wouldn't really want to mourn in front of the public. I don't see that as evidence against him. Likewise, *if* he were innocent, I wouldn't judge him for not fighting the custody. He's clearly a suspect. Even if he weren't guilty, he may think that his daughters would be better off elsewhere for the time being. Again, not evidence against him in my book.

Plenty of other stuff doesn't look right to me, but those two things don't seem like evidence to me (not even circumstantial).

 

[Wudge]

I hate to disagree with you again Wudge, but what is needed for a conviction is a good prosecutor and enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a REASONABLE doubt. That's it!

To hope to prove murder, a prosecutor needs both inculpatory evidence and corroborating evidence. If all a prosecutor has is evidence that the trial Judge establishes to be corroborating evidence, that is insufficient evidence.


HTH

 

[sues]

Is the carwash just speculation? I don't remember reading anything about it.

I don't think there is anything out there about that. I was just asking IF there was such evidence, would it help convict. I have no reason to believe evidence of that nature exists or not.

 

[wirehair]

He could have used the cleaning products that he already had at the house and maybe ran out...thus the trip to the store. He would have had to clean his clothes and recognizable sneakers. Someone could connect them back to him if found. I wonder if the house smelled really "clean" when anyone came in the next day. If they had a large dog there may have been a rubber protector in the back of car. That wouldn't take as long to clean. If he wears a watch, someone should look into the nooks and cranies of the band for something that couldn't be reached if he tried to clean it. I doubt he would have washed it with detergent. Check the hair on the dog and the pads of his feet. He could have stepped into something important. The traffic on Holly Springs road runs almost steady even at 1 or 2 in the morning, especially on weekends. He probably didn't turn out his lights until he got into the new part. I hope the LE was out there during those hours talking to people. If I had known there was an extension to that development, I would have searched there first. I mentioned a few other isolated places to go if the search expanded. We had a really bad storm the Friday evening and maybe that's what there were no workers on Sat. From the photos, it appears that the roads have been cut and paved. It doesn't appear that any lots have been cleared. If she were placed on the other side of the silt fence, someone driving through on the road would not have seen her. I haven't been down there even though it's within 2 mi of me. I don't want to go by myself.