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

[fran]

Fran - one other thing in this case - we do know dogs were brought in. It seems safe to reach a conclusion that the tracking dogs specifically did not track a running Nancy to the location in which she was found. We don't know if the dogs tracked her or not actually but what we do know is there was nothing that led them to the recovery scene which seems to indicate Nancy was indeed transported to that location and did not go there of her own choosing. And yeah I know, dog tracking is seldom admissable in court but for search purposes and for aiming LE - they work pretty well.

I didn't think of that Charlie, good point!

So many things a killer, looking to dispose of a body, just doesn't think of.

Details....

fran

 

[SusieClue]

Fran - one other thing in this case - we do know dogs were brought in. It seems safe to reach a conclusion that the tracking dogs specifically did not track a running Nancy to the location in which she was found. We don't know if the dogs tracked her or not actually but what we do know is there was nothing that led them to the recovery scene which seems to indicate Nancy was indeed transported to that location and did not go there of her own choosing. And yeah I know, dog tracking is seldom admissable in court but for search purposes and for aiming LE - they work pretty well.

Right, and since she didn't run there, and most likely a random killer wouldn't transport her body - that leaves our friend, BC as the most likely suspect.

 

[jumpstreet]

I do not believe so, no. I think the woman who called Nancy was the actual woman who HAD the affair with Brad. I'll check affidavits.

In the BC affidavit, didn't he state that his only extra-marital activity was the one with HM some year ago, and even that was a single incident?

I realize that's inconsistent with much of the information in the affidavits submitted by NC's friends, but still, it made me wonder: If this wasn't true, why would he state this explicitly in the sworn affidavit, when all it would take is one person coming forward to refute it. Why take that chance unless it was true (no other affairs)?

 

[raisincharlie]

Right, and since she didn't run there, and most likely a random killer wouldn't transport her body - that leaves our friend, BC as the most likely suspect.

Honestly, i don't know about that. I have zero familiarity with the area in which Nancy routinely ran so I have no idea what kind of access a random killer would have to both the trails and a vehicle at the same time. In other words - do the trails cross over streets where a car could be parked or through / near vehicular parking areas?

For no one to have seen this, a vehicle would have had to have been relatively close at hand for access and it seems to me that is a chance a random killer probably would not take - dragging a person/body to a vehicle. Were it random I would think the killer would leave her where it happened - not transport her across Holly Srings Road to dispose of her body. That does not make much sense to me anyhow. I believe LE didn't see much sense in it either.

 

[Tink56]

As I've been reading the last few days, I was curious about a couple of things. Maybe someone will remember or know the answers to help me out.

1) NC seemed to enjoy good wine and social drinking with friends. However, since she had Crohn's Disease, how did she tolerate the alcohol? I noticed that one of her friends even mentioned at the North Carolina service that Nancy would say something about getting everyone a drink or ???
2) Who contacted NC's parents--Law enforcement or her friends? When did they arrive--Sunday or Monday? Some have mentioned Clea Morwick's statement on Fox news about "not suspecting Brad." However, she may have already been working with Nancy's parents and sister on the emergency custody hearing. Certainly the affidavits took more than an hour's preparation.
3) How long had Nancy been back from her family vacation in South Carolina? Did she arrive home on Monday, July 7th or ????? It seems that being with her family solidified her decision to proceed with the divorce. Also, the absence, I'm sure gave Brad time to brood about the terms of the divorce as they stood in the 2nd draft of the separation agreement. Paying private school tuition for two kiddos and college is a huge expense. Many of the others were large also, but private school tuition for the primary and secondary grades probably runs anywhere between $15-20/year/child. That's after-tax money, too.
4) Did anyone else think that Nancy's father and brother (the Canadian policeman) were challenging Brad to "man-up" and confess when they were calling her killer a "coward"?
5) Although I'm glad that the CPD is being thorough, I sure wish SOMETHING would be finished or shared with the public soon--I think DNA testing is much faster these days, but it may depend on what kind of DNA tests are being run.

I'm off to run errands. Hoping some of you remember the answers to some of these better than I do. TIA!

 

[MoonFlwr]

I'm not LE, but my guess is a seasoned detective may be able to make an intelligent observation on IF the body was attacked there or 'dumped' there. Most likely by 'foot prints' surrounding the body or leaving the scene and how the body was lying there. The positioning. ie, reference to a crime, it's called 'staging.'

Another way they may be able to make a fairly accurate observation, would be to look at the 'bottom' of the victim's shoes. Is there evidence the victim had been jogging in the surrounding area?

Last, but not least, to estimate the 'timing' of when death occurred, stomach contents and the degree it was digested.

IMO, these are the types of things overlooked by someone hastily ridding themselves of the body. PLUS, like I've said before, there's no courses to take on murder.

As one poster said during one of our cases, (highly experienced in law, I might add), the most difficult part of a murder, is disposing of the body. It's like the elephant in the middle of the room.

JMHO
fran

Except for guys like Richard Kuklinski, who mastered the art.

 

[Tink56]

In the BC affidavit, didn't he state that his only extra-marital activity was the one with HM some year ago, and even that was a single incident?

I realize that's inconsistent with much of the information in the affidavits submitted by NC's friends, but still, it made me wonder: If this wasn't true, why would he state this explicitly in the sworn affidavit, when all it would take is one person coming forward to refute it. Why take that chance unless it was true (no other affairs)?

Isn't Brad the person who denied the affair with Heather for more than a year? He seems to rely on the druggie motto of, "Deny, deny, deny...."

Most adulterers seem to believe that their partners in crime won't talk either. Look at Scott Peterson, for instance.

 

[SleuthyGal]

edited to say: looks like he took his site down...that naughty, naughty boy...I wonder why?

I found it right here:

http://tinyurl.com/6ly8h5

 

[jumpstreet]

Isn't Brad the person who denied the affair with Heather for more than a year? He seems to rely on the druggie motto of, "Deny, deny, deny...."

Most adulterers seem to believe that their partners in crime won't talk either. Look at Scott Peterson, for instance.

Yeah, it's a good point, but I guess it just seemed to me that he gave a fair bit of thought to what he stated in the affidavit, relaying those points that (seemingly) can be substantiated / corroborated, with an emphasis on countering certain points from the plaintiff's affidavits.

it just seems an irrational & unnecessary risk to me on his part, with little to gain, if indeed it is an untruth. (He could have acknowledged/conceded the affair with HM in the affidavit, and not necessarily gone on record as saying there were no others).

OTOH, if there really were no other affairs, his statement would seem to make more (logical) sense on the surface at least, but who knows.

 

[reddress58]

In the BC affidavit, didn't he state that his only extra-marital activity was the one with HM some year ago, and even that was a single incident?

I realize that's inconsistent with much of the information in the affidavits submitted by NC's friends, but still, it made me wonder: If this wasn't true, why would he state this explicitly in the sworn affidavit, when all it would take is one person coming forward to refute it. Why take that chance unless it was true (no other affairs)?

This is what scares me. I think he would say anything at that time to get the kids back. He figured the judge would make a decision that day before anybody refuted his statements. By the time others came forward, he may be GONE with the kids! Just an opinion. We really don't know if he had other affairs; but her friends seem pretty darn sure the relationship with HM went on for awhile. HM would hold the key to that answer.

 

[reddress58]

I found it right here:

http://tinyurl.com/6ly8h5

How'd you find it, SG?

 

[reddress58]

Yeah, it's a good point, but I guess it just seemed to me that he gave a fair bit of thought to what he stated in the affidavit, relaying those points that (seemingly) can be substantiated / corroborated, with an emphasis on countering certain points from the plaintiff's affidavits.

it just seems an irrational & unnecessary risk to me on his part, with little to gain, if indeed it is an untruth. (He could have acknowledged/conceded the affair with HM in the affidavit, and not necessarily gone on record as saying there were no others).

OTOH, if there really were no other affairs, his statement would seem to make more (logical) sense on the surface at least, but who knows.

Warning, warning! Miss Fran is going to jump all over this!

 

[SleuthyGal]

How'd you find it, SG?

Ph.D. from Google University! :blowkiss:

 

[reddress58]

I'm just going off of memory here... but it seems to me that I read BC came clean about his affair with HM because he was called to testify in the suit against HM. Anyone else remember this? Going to go search the affidavits now...

He was going to have to testify for something, but I don't recall what for. I think the statement was in one of NC's friends' affidavits.

 

[reddress58]

Ph.D. from Google University! :blowkiss:

Ya can't hide from SluethyGal, Brad!!

 

[SusieClue]

I found it right here:

http://tinyurl.com/6ly8h5

ooohhh, you ARE good girl! thanks!

 

[carolinalady]

As I've been reading the last few days, I was curious about a couple of things. Maybe someone will remember or know the answers to help me out.

1) NC seemed to enjoy good wine and social drinking with friends. However, since she had Crohn's Disease, how did she tolerate the alcohol? I noticed that one of her friends even mentioned at the North Carolina service that Nancy would say something about getting everyone a drink or ???
2) Who contacted NC's parents--Law enforcement or her friends? When did they arrive--Sunday or Monday? Some have mentioned Clea Morwick's statement on Fox news about "not suspecting Brad." However, she may have already been working with Nancy's parents and sister on the emergency custody hearing. Certainly the affidavits took more than an hour's preparation.
3) How long had Nancy been back from her family vacation in South Carolina? Did she arrive home on Monday, July 7th or ????? It seems that being with her family solidified her decision to proceed with the divorce. Also, the absence, I'm sure gave Brad time to brood about the terms of the divorce as they stood in the 2nd draft of the separation agreement. Paying private school tuition for two kiddos and college is a huge expense. Many of the others were large also, but private school tuition for the primary and secondary grades probably runs anywhere between $15-20/year/child. That's after-tax money, too.
4) Did anyone else think that Nancy's father and brother (the Canadian policeman) were challenging Brad to "man-up" and confess when they were calling her killer a "coward"?
5) Although I'm glad that the CPD is being thorough, I sure wish SOMETHING would be finished or shared with the public soon--I think DNA testing is much faster these days, but it may depend on what kind of DNA tests are being run.

I'm off to run errands. Hoping some of you remember the answers to some of these better than I do. TIA!

Clea's statement had nothing to do w/ the Ex Parte hearing, but was for the hearing on 7/25. The affidavit was done on 7/23.

 

[carolinalady]

This is what scares me. I think he would say anything at that time to get the kids back. He figured the judge would make a decision that day before anybody refuted his statements. By the time others came forward, he may be GONE with the kids! Just an opinion. We really don't know if he had other affairs; but her friends seem pretty darn sure the relationship with HM went on for awhile. HM would hold the key to that answer.

I believe all of the affidavits went back & forth on 7/23 and the hearing was scheduled for 7/25 in the afternoon if I'm remembering correctly. That would've given time for plenty of the stuff to be verified.

 

[Bob&Bob]

I do not believe so, no. I think the woman who called Nancy was the actual woman who HAD the affair with Brad. I'll check affidavits.

Do any of these women ever keep their mouths shut?

 

[Tink56]

Clea's statement had nothing to do w/ the Ex Parte hearing, but was for the hearing on 7/25. The affidavit was done on 7/23.

Thanks...You're so right.