A note as to why he CC'd his Father in Law.... I tried to talk to my mother in law at the time because she loved me and her daughter and new the state her daughter was in. I included her in some discussions to help with dealing with my ex wife. I can't even begin to tell you how eerily similar this is to my own hell i went through.
Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #10
- Thread starter christine2448
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
KY- I-75 Active Shooter Targeting Vehicles- Latest: nerosleuth
-
- Status
A note as to why he CC'd his Father in Law.... I tried to talk to my mother in law at the time because she loved me and her daughter and new the state her daughter was in. I included her in some discussions to help with dealing with my ex wife. I can't even begin to tell you how eerily similar this is to my own hell i went through.
Its allot easier to just spend and spend when you are not the one seeing it leave your accounts. I tend to believe from my own experiences and from whats been said that she was over spending which lead to more restricted funds. It's very easily tracked by looking at the credit card bills. Hearing her purse was 1200 dollars and 200 dollar pants and 200 dollar Pedicure, 8 thousand dollar paintings... I tend to believe him on this. She had the nicer newer car, reports she and the girls were always dressed nice...aka 50 dresses for a 2 years old is nuts. So I can see once her spending was controlled it upset her which can lead to over exaggerating complaints to friends. I have been there I have heard it.
Forgive me, I'm a little behind. But wanted to comment on the $200 designer jeans and $200 pedi. Which does seem high even in the best of spa's. Anyway, who's to say this was for Nancy?
The affidavit even mentioned that Brad had a tendency to spend lavishly on is girlfriends.
I'm inclined to think that Brad was spending the money on another woman especially since she was not able to use the CC's.
If she had access to them, she'd be using them for groceries and gas.
You never see her decked out, she's always dressed sporty as others have mentioned.
Hardly the high fashion and jewelery shopaholic Brad mentions.
The affidavit even mentioned that Brad had a tendency to spend lavishly on is girlfriends.
I'm inclined to think that Brad was spending the money on another woman especially since she was not able to use the CC's.
If she had access to them, she'd be using them for groceries and gas.
You never see her decked out, she's always dressed sporty as others have mentioned.
Hardly the high fashion and jewelery shopaholic Brad mentions.
Well besides that she was seen in the jeans and confirmed the Pedi. The purse that was hers and in her car was 1200. again easily traced by looking at the signatures on the CC slips. He is not going to admit something so traceable if it wasn't true.
They extended the temporary custody. Kids going to Canada. My friends Girlfriend reports for WRAL and is in the court room, he just got a text on his phone from her. No testimony was given.
fran
Former Member
You're right, the credit card statements will be proof. That ought to be interesting.
Well, according to Nancy, she did have a will. The question is, where is it?
Oh, yeah, Brad said she didn't make one up. Since she can't speak for herself, we'll just ASSume he's telling the truth. I'm sure he wouldn't rip it up or anything.
The will has EVERYTHING to do with custody, IF Nancy did in fact make out one and said she wanted her sister to have the children. She MAY have meant IF both of them died at once. But we'll never know now, will we?
See, I look at it this way, people can believe whatever the husband says as truth. But when there are opposing statements, one must stop and ponder. Why would he lie? Well, because IF he's lying about things that are detrimental to him it's to PROTECT himself, of course.
The first thing is, was he abusive? He says he wasn't. HIS friends and family say he wasn't. OTOH, Nancy's friends and family say he WAS. Whos' telling the truth?
Oh, let's ask Nancy, she would know!
Oh, wait,...........she was MURDERED.
And I believe we have the usual Suspect #1.
While Nancy's case is being investigated, and IF and until he's arrested, Brad doesn't want the judge to have ANOTHER possible reason to leave the kids with Nancy's parents, because first a foremost it would have been the victim's wishes.
No, no, no.
But you know what? I'm not a lawyer, know nothing about the custody laws. But, IMHO, I believe the judge would have given Brad back the kids if he had NOT written one thing and just showed up in court. He didn't have to have all of his friends and family throw their little digs in on the good name of his recently MURDERED wife. IMO, the judge would probably feel better towards him than he most likely will now that he's begun throwing mud on the victim.
JMHO
fran
fran
Former Member
You're right, the credit card statements will be proof. That ought to be interesting.
Well, according to Nancy, she did have a will. The question is, where is it?
Oh, yeah, Brad said she didn't make one up. Since she can't speak for herself, we'll just ASSume he's telling the truth. I'm sure he wouldn't rip it up or anything.
The will has EVERYTHING to do with custody, IF Nancy did in fact make out one and said she wanted her sister to have the children. She MAY have meant IF both of them died at once. But we'll never know now, will we?
See, I look at it this way, people can believe whatever the husband says as truth. But when there are opposing statements, one must stop and ponder. Why would he lie? Well, because IF he's lying about things that are detrimental to him it's to PROTECT himself, of course.
The first thing is, was he abusive? He says he wasn't. HIS friends and family say he wasn't. OTOH, Nancy's friends and family say he WAS. Whos' telling the truth?
Oh, let's ask Nancy, she would know!
Oh, wait,...........she was MURDERED.
And I believe we have the usual Suspect #1.
While Nancy's case is being investigated, and IF and until he's arrested, Brad doesn't want the judge to have ANOTHER possible reason to leave the kids with Nancy's parents, because first a foremost it would have been the victim's wishes.
No, no, no.
But you know what? I'm not a lawyer, know nothing about the custody laws. But, IMHO, I believe the judge would have given Brad back the kids if he had NOT written one thing and just showed up in court. He didn't have to have all of his friends and family throw their little digs in on the good name of his recently MURDERED wife. IMO, the judge would probably feel better towards him than he most likely will now that he's begun throwing mud on the victim.
JMHO
fran
Yes but the things he is defending and stating can all be verified by phone records and CC statements. If he is lying its pretty easy to figure out.
fran
Former Member
I'll go along with you mom2boys.
He couldn't even buy her a Xmas present last Christmas!
Wonder what he bought himself?:waitasec:
JMHO
fran
Just found out the terms of his visitation rights. They have to at the very minimum allow him 4 hours a day on each day of two separate weekends before October 13th. The visits are supervised. He is allowed more if he wants or can. He at the very minimum must be allowed to call them or Web Chat at least 4 times a week. Meaning he can do more but he must be allowed at least that by the Grandparents. These are the minimum.
So what will you say when the receipts come out and you clearly see her signature making all the purchases?
They must have something more than the affidavits from friends, because I can't imagine they would take his children away from everything they know based on hear-say. He may very well be guilty, but based on the info we have been privy to, he should have his kids IMO. It's scary to think someone can take your children away that easily. I hope they have a lot more to base the decision on than we do....I'm actually shocked and sick at the same time. I certainly think he's a bottom feeder, but I'm very unsure about this!!
fran
Former Member
See, this is the way it works. He's thinking that this isn't going to come down to that type of thing. Getting SW or whatever for the CC statements over custody. He's thinking just his word is good enough.
I seem to recall when Scott Peterson, all the way into his trial and used in his defense attorney's opening statement, the witnesses at the marina who worked there saw him, he talked to them, yadda, yadda, yadda...........seriously, the jury was give this in the opening for the def. There were also SEVERAL alleged eye witnesses who SAW Laci that day in the park. THAT was in the opening also.
Did you watch or hear about the trial. The pros was ridiculed for the beginning of their case, boring!!!!
The problem is, people did NOT get it. The pros brought out, witness, after witness, after witness, everyone working at the marina that day. Did they see Scott? NO. NO. NO. NO
Eye witnesses that saw Laci that day. Did they testify for the defense? No, no, no, no.............
You cannot always believe what a liar says. Is Brad a liar? I dunno for sure,.............yet.....
Time will tell.
JMHO
fran
fran
Former Member
fran
Former Member
Not knowing all that much about this type of thing, I'm with you. I actually thought he'd get the kids.
There must be some information that isn't in the public, that the judge knows?
curious, really,
fran
After reading everything I believe he should have his kids as well. Think of it this way... its better to do this verse heaven forbid he did something with them. From what I read I don't think he would and I think he should get his girls but I think its easier to scare authorities into being over protective now due to the lack of evidence or knowledge in the case. This is being done out of fear of not knowing much of anything. More so a better safe than sorry.
It was a public hearing.
- Status