Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #15

[d99gr81]

Well, I guess we are even then.
You don't know either one.
I tend to believe sworn affidavits over gossip and speculation.

They were all sworn... lol

 

[Just the Fax]

OK I agree she said that...she also stated that she did not think Brad had anything to do with it... so how about that? You only pick and chose.

Go ask her now and see what she says

She was on National TV and her body had not even been identified.
This was still a missing persons case.

 

[d99gr81]

anyways off work and I have had enough for today... check back tomorrow...Good night

 

[Just the Fax]

They were all sworn... lol

Your point was questioning what her friends said about Brad.
There were none by Nancy's family....all her close friends that Nancy confided in.

Brad's buds were his immediate family and a few guys he worked with at Cisco. They all said Brad was very private and to himself. Heck , he never even told his parents they were separating

Again, I chose to believe Nancy's friends as far as knowing the insides of the marriage.

 

[d99gr81]

Your point was questioning what her friends said about Brad.
There were none by Nancy's family....all her close friends that Nancy confided in.

Brad's buds were his immediate family and a few guys he worked with at Cisco. They all said Brad was very private and to himself. Heck , he never even told his parents they were separating

Again, I chose to believe Nancy's friends as far as knowing the insides of the marriage.

Right because no one like NC would ever exaggerate her problems... beenthrough it first hand but what ever . again no hard feelings i'm out of here.

 

[FullDisclosure]

So, JTF, did you get a chance to watch? Thoughts? Anyone? Anyone??

I didn't hear any revelations other than her saying Absolutely Not to any possiblity that Nancy may have been meeting up with someone.

She confirmed that Nancy and Carrie had no plans to run that day per her conversation with Carrie and that Nancy did confirm the night before she was going running the next morning.

She confirmed Nancy was the type that would show up.[/QUOTE]

um....what about the part where she said there was absolutely no way Brad had anything to do with her disappearance? Did you hear that part??

I agree that Clea did change her tune July 23, but when asked point-blank that day--on nat'l TV--if she thought Nancy's husband was involved, she said "no." I just find that very interesting. That's all.

 

[Just the Fax]

What are your accounts? Not only do you know nothing of who they REALLY were... you go by what her family and friends have said about him... so I will add some others that have said this about NC.

She has a 1200 dollar purse...
200 dollar jeans...
8000 dollar paintings....
200 pedicures.
BMW x5...

sure looks like showing off to me as well. Please to say because he had some web pages where he blogs or documents his accomplishments is NOTHING many others don't do.

Sounds like you are a tad jealous maybe ?

like RC pointed out she bought the $1200 computer case for Brad, not herself.

Do you honestly think she went out an bought all of this expensive art work without his approval ? Look at the separation agreement, as it seems like Brad had a passion for expensive art too.

$200 pedicures ? I just called my wife and she said they run around $50-$60 tops at the spas in the area. if she paid $200, it was full a full day treatment including massage at a resort spa....exaggeration imo

BMW X-5 ? Sure Nancy wanted it but the fact remains Brad signed on the dotted line to get both BMW's.
If he did not want them, they would not have them.....Nancy was totally at his mercy in financial situations.

 

[Just the Fax]

I didn't hear any revelations other than her saying Absolutely Not to any possiblity that Nancy may have been meeting up with someone.

She confirmed that Nancy and Carrie had no plans to run that day per her conversation with Carrie and that Nancy did confirm the night before she was going running the next morning.

She confirmed Nancy was the type that would show up.

[/quote]

Again, she never said where she heard this statement by Nancy.
I have doubts if she heard second hand.

 

[Just the Fax]

Right because no one like NC would ever exaggerate her problems... beenthrough it first hand but what ever . again no hard feelings i'm out of here.

I'm sure there was some unintentional exaggeration in recalling some of the facts...but these were sworn and the main points were confirmed by many different people.

 

[FullDisclosure]

wow the quote feature IS really screwed up right now!

 

[raisincharlie]

I think this showing off argument is baloney. All one has to do is look at the tax records to be able to tell that first - the BMW X 5 was not a new vehicle when it was purchased in 2006 by Brad. Neither was the BMW 325 as it was also a used vehicle. To me that seems to be a compromise position and definitely not showing off.

What is also interesting about those records is until 2006, there is only one vehicle in their possession. The man worked, he needed a car to get to work. Nancy had responsibility for children at home - she needed a vehicle to get those kids about. Funny she didn't get a vehicle for her and the kids to consistently use until 2006, two years after Bella was born.

Showing off - baloney.

Let me add Brad had himself a motorcycle in 2002 as well - I have serious doubts that was purchased for Nancy.

 

[Just the Fax]

I think this showing off argument is baloney. All one has to do is look at the tax records to be able to tell that first - the BMW X 5 was not a new vehicle when it was purchased in 2006 by Brad. Neither was the BMW 325 as it was also a used vehicle. To me that seems to be a compromise position and definitely not showing off.

What is also intersting about those records is until 2006, there is only one vehicle in their possession. The man worked, he needed a car to get to work. Nancy had responsibility for children at home - she needed a vehicle to get those kids about. Funny she didn't get a vehicle for her and the kids to consistently use until 2006, two years after Bella was born.

Showing off - baloney.

I agree, 2 used BMW's means nothing, as they depreciate quite fast and are a dime a dozen on the used market.

"BMW" and "Louis Vuitton" are no indication of status, although I think both of them wanted others to think they had more than they really did.

 

[carolinalady]

I was reading BC's friends & family affidavits. Michael Morwick's states that he and Clea took the girls to their house while the police were at the Coopers. He says the police were there until 10:30/11pm.

So, you wonder if Bella told them about seeing her mom in the AM.

 

[carolinalady]

I think this showing off argument is baloney. All one has to do is look at the tax records to be able to tell that first - the BMW X 5 was not a new vehicle when it was purchased in 2006 by Brad. Neither was the BMW 325 as it was also a used vehicle. To me that seems to be a compromise position and definitely not showing off.

What is also interesting about those records is until 2006, there is only one vehicle in their possession. The man worked, he needed a car to get to work. Nancy had responsibility for children at home - she needed a vehicle to get those kids about. Funny she didn't get a vehicle for her and the kids to consistently use until 2006, two years after Bella was born.

Showing off - baloney.

Let me add Brad had himself a motorcycle in 2002 as well - I have serious doubts that was purchased for Nancy.

He does say that the 325 had been Nancy's car prior to the purchase of the X5.

I know that some of her friends' affidavits address her having to walk places and take taxis and that could be true in some instances if they shared a car. I know that when we had one car, I would drive my husband to work and pick him up. That way, I'd have a car to drive the kids places and run errands.

 

[Just the Fax]

He does say that the 325 had been Nancy's car prior to the purchase of the X5.

.

I took that as she drove the 325 and had something else to drive at the time.

 

[raisincharlie]

He does say that the 325 had been Nancy's car prior to the purchase of the X5.

I know that some of her friends' affidavits address her having to walk places and take taxis and that could be true in some instances if they shared a car. I know that when we had one car, I would drive my husband to work and pick him up. That way, I'd have a car to drive the kids places and run errands.

I don't doubt there were days the car was with one or the other as in shared. I find it interesting however that he says everything is Nancy's but her name does not appear to be on anything. I have no problem with this but once again his affidavits are very misleading with respect to the reality, self serving if you will.

Could he not say they shared the car instead of saying it was Nancy's car?

 

[SleuthyGal]

As this case progresses I think it would be interesting to keep a running tally of truths and lies as they are discovered/verified. Right now we have lots of 'he said/she said' stuff, but other than the affidavits, there's not much to work with.

Regardless of who had which car and when and who liked paintings or not and who had more friends or not, the things *I* am most interested in revolve around:

1. The visits to one (or more) HTs and the proof of each of those visits.
2. The exact times of those visits and exactly what was purchased when.
3. Results of the autopsy/COD/TOD
4. Forensic/DNA results (or lack thereof)
5. Any visits or calls by NC to Interact or similar facilities
6. The list of exactly what was confiscated from the SW on the house, office, computers, etc.
7. What, if anything, was found in or on either car on Sat/Sun from CPD searches.
8. What was laundered that Sat morning, requiring such an early visit to HT for detergent.
9. What plans were verified that Sat morning by NC, and what plans were verified that Sat morning by BC

 

[carolinalady]

As this case progresses I think it would be interesting to keep a running tally of truths and lies as they are discovered/verified. Right now we have lots of 'he said/she said' stuff, but other than the affidavits, there's not much to work with.

Regardless of who had which car and when and who liked paintings or not and who had more friends or not, the things *I* am most interested in revolve around:

1. The visits to one (or more) HTs and the proof of each of those visits.
2. The exact times of those visits and exactly what was purchased when.
3. Results of the autopsy/COD/TOD
4. Forensic/DNA results (or lack thereof)
5. Any visits or calls by NC to Interact or similar facilities
6. The list of exactly what was confiscated from the SW on the house, office, computers, etc.
7. What, if anything, was found in or on either car on Sat/Sun from CPD searches.
8. What was laundered that Sat morning, requiring such an early visit to HT for detergent.
9. What plans were verified that Sat morning by NC, and what plans were verified that Sat morning by BC

I agree.

 

[Just the Fax]

Most of this will likely not be disclosed until after the arrest.
The rest will not be officially confirmed until trial.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Most of this will likely not be disclosed until after the arrest.
The rest will not be officially confirmed until trial.

Yes I know. Which is why we've got nothing much to work with, and why details like who liked expensive art and fancy cars is getting mulled over when, in the scheme of the crime, they aren't all that compelling.