Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #18

[momto3kids]

Mt3K

I wanted to address this as to if something was found during the search of the residence. I am going to say if anything was found during the search of the residence, that information would not be passed to the Rentz's. The search warrant(s) were sealed, the only persons who know, outside of LE, what was found, if anything, and what was taken, would be BC and his lawyer.

Because the Rentz's are Nancy's parents - does not mean LE is going to give them a play by play describing all the evidence etc. As to the other sealed warrants - the Rentz's will know no more about them than we do. This is one reason I studied on Interact - LE does refer victims to Interact, sorry to say I do not recall who posted the brochure showing this. It is possible that Interact assists the LE victims advocate during these periods, particularly the periods of distress for children. This is just my thought on it.

In my opinion, if LE provided any information for use at the custody hearing it would have been rather non specific with regards to physical evidence relating to Nancy's murder. As we can recall - LE was in the residence on the same day Nancy went missing - they had no warrant but it is a given they were making observations at that time and making mental notes in the event a warrant would be obtained. There is no telling what they saw on the 12th - but it is a given that on the 16th they had some ideas of what and where to look.

But let me ask a quick question - in the days before Nancy was found and identified, and her death ruled a homicide, and the children were taken away - why in several of the press conferences are the media asking Chief Bazemore if there is a suspect or person of interest ? Nancy was only missing - she could have gone away of her own volition - why would this question be raised at all ? Does that make any sense if a person is just missing ?

RC....

This is why I state to correct me if I am wrong, I don't know how matters are handled when it comes to a case like this. I am happy you have explained it to me for a better understanding.

You expressed what I actually should have asked...
They took NC purse on the 12th, correct? If they did, they had time to maybe discover something in there disturbing...possible copy of the note BC wrote to himself like her friends knew about, or a calendar with important dates & notes...such as what occured with her and BC so she could give it to Ms.Stubbs. Maybe even Interact dates and discussion. See what I am getting at?

A calendar in a woman't purse is powerful IMO. You would know the daily activities, kids names, appointments and with who (Interact?).

Here's my question...
Since LE were at the Cooper's on the 12th they most likely had an idea of what they wanted to go for when they arrived with the SW.
Is there a chance they were tipped off by her purse contents and some of LE leg work done being done before the 16th, that once the SW issued they went in and were able to confirm something?
Is it not possible a nod was received by Ms Stubbs , yes we did in deed locate so&so, so she went forward? It could be something Mr.Rentz asked aboiut that NC shared with him...IDK

What we do know is something occured for those beautiful children to be removed so swiftly from a biological father who was not named a POI or suspect.

 

[raisincharlie]

RC....

This is why I state to correct me if I am wrong, I don't know how matters are handled when it comes to a case like this. I am happy you have explained it to me for a better understanding.

You expressed what I actually should have asked...
They took NC purse on the 12th, correct? If they did, they had time to maybe discover something in there disturbing...possible copy of the note BC wrote to himself like her friends knew about, or a calendar with important dates & notes...such as what occured with her and BC so she could give it to Ms.Stubbs. Maybe even Interact dates and discussion. See what I am getting at?

A calendar in a woman't purse is powerful IMO. You would know the daily activities, kids names, appointments and with who (Interact?).

Here's my question...
Since LE were at the Cooper's on the 12th they most likely had an idea of what they wanted to go for when they arrived with the SW.
Is there a chance they were tipped off by her purse contents and some of LE leg work done being done before the 16th, that once the SW issued they went in and were able to confirm something?
Is it not possible a nod was received by Ms Stubbs , yes we did in deed locate so&so, so she went forward? It could be something Mr.Rentz asked aboiut that NC shared with him...IDK

What we do know is something occured for those beautiful children to be removed so swiftly from a biological father who was not named a POI or suspect.

Mt3K,

Yes, LE was there for I believe 7 or so hours on the 12th. Brad was cooperating - the purse was removed from the vehicle and I would think since Brad was cooperating - the contents were somewhat looked at. So was the house and there is no telling what LE saw inside the residence. (Kinda like SP having his telephone book open to the lawyers page - - or the odor of bleach) LE would want to see things that might indicate she had packed clothes and such. LE can often see things as a clue the untrained person would never think of. Perhaps they saw something unusual about the cars - maybe dust or dirt in the wheel wells - sure were looking for that on the 16th.

Combine in other factors - such as Carey Clarke - we know some friends spoke with her that very day so if Brad mentioned this or even JA- LE would have checked it out very quickly. Add in that there were no sightings of Nancy, no reports of suspicious activity in the area, and LE is going to be wondering. And I have to say if Brad gave them the story about going to the store twice in one hour before Nancy supposedly left - LE is going to be wondering about it.

As to Ms. Stubbs - I'm sure TS has contacts, possible they were given a wink in some form but the truth is all she had to do was watch the same press conferences we had to view to realize something foul was at work. She also had information she had received from Nancy directly, she probably knew as much about the marital issues, if not more, than the friends. But I do agree, there was something definitive to allow a judge to remove those children. A wild thought - what if Alice Stubbs had put a PI on Brad for the upcoming custody battle ? Wild but perhaps not impossible. You never know.

 

[Onescout]

Mt3K,

Yes, LE was there for I believe 7 or so hours on the 12th. Brad was cooperating - the purse was removed from the vehicle and I would think since Brad was cooperating - the contents were somewhat looked at. So was the house and there is no telling what LE saw inside the residence. (Kinda like SP having his telephone book open to the lawyers page - - or the odor of bleach) LE would want to see things that might indicate she had packed clothes and such. LE can often see things as a clue the untrained person would never think of. Perhaps they saw something unusual about the cars - maybe dust or dirt in the wheel wells - sure were looking for that on the 16th.

Combine in other factors - such as Carey Clarke - we know some friends spoke with her that very day so if Brad mentioned this or even JA- LE would have checked it out very quickly. Add in that there were no sightings of Nancy, no reports of suspicious activity in the area, and LE is going to be wondering. And I have to say if Brad gave them the story about going to the store twice in one hour before Nancy supposedly left - LE is going to be wondering about it.

As to Ms. Stubbs - I'm sure TS has contacts, possible they were given a wink in some form but the truth is all she had to do was watch the same press conferences we had to view to realize something foul was at work. She also had information she had received from Nancy directly, she probably knew as much about the marital issues, if not more, than the friends. But I do agree, there was something definitive to allow a judge to remove those children. A wild thought - what if Alice Stubbs had put a PI on Brad for the upcoming custody battle ? Wild but perhaps not impossible. You never know.

Hi guys,
You know what would be the most telling out of all of this? If there was record through local stores like HT of a history BC making regular purchases between 4am and 6am in the past.
That particular pattern would show he does that on a regualr basis and nothing odd about that particular night. Right?
Because if he doesn't normally do that, hmmmmmm.
If Alice Stubbs put a PI on BC it would've been very expensive, they usually charge hourly plus expenses, they sometimes bill higher than the attorney!
Anyway, looking forward to tomorrow to see if anyone is charged.
SOmething needs to happen before the next custody hearing in Oct.

 

[raisincharlie]

Hi guys,
You know what would be the most telling out of all of this? If there was record through local stores like HT of a history BC making regular purchases between 4am and 6am in the past.
That particular pattern would show he does that on a regualr basis and nothing odd about that particular night. Right?
Because if he doesn't normally do that, hmmmmmm.
If Alice Stubbs put a PI on BC it would've been very expensive, they usually charge hourly plus expenses, they sometimes bill higher than the attorney!
Anyway, looking forward to tomorrow to see if anyone is charged.
SOmething needs to happen before the next custody hearing in Oct.

Here now - not all PIs do that :crazy:

Patterns and routines are definitely a path for LE. I'm not gonna hold my breath for anyone to be charged tomorrow but I do suspect there will be movement before the mid October hearing.

 

[Anderson]

Hi guys,
You know what would be the most telling out of all of this? If there was record through local stores like HT of a history BC making regular purchases between 4am and 6am in the past.
That particular pattern would show he does that on a regualr basis and nothing odd about that particular night. Right?
Because if he doesn't normally do that, hmmmmmm.
If Alice Stubbs put a PI on BC it would've been very expensive, they usually charge hourly plus expenses, they sometimes bill higher than the attorney!
Anyway, looking forward to tomorrow to see if anyone is charged.
SOmething needs to happen before the next custody hearing in Oct.

Hi all,

I believe that Brad did say that he made these trips to the HT on a routine basis in his affidavit.

 

[momto3kids]

RC.....
I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that any parents could come in and say...my daughter is dead, I have grandkids in danger, she is trying to get a divorce and he is controlling.

IIRC no physical abuse has been stated, nothing pertaining to the grandkids being abused.

Interact wasn't noted until the 25th, correct? IMO that wouldn't have pulled strings for the 16th.
Marriage counseling? No IMO, not abnormal.
SS not contacted per BC statement.
Ms Stubbs owed a favor? Absolutely NOT
Mr. Rentz pulling strings? No, the courts didn't know Mr Rentz from "Tom's housecat"

What, just what was so compelling to move those children quickly from BC???


So part 2....
If it was something so compelling I feel sure NC friends would have knew about it and have put in their affidavits. We heard nothing about his mistreat of the children. That was what these affidavits were essentially going to be for...BC not being a fit parent.

I really think a nod came to Ms. Stubbs on the 16th and that is all that was needed to get the ball rolling for those grandkids. I think it is something the Rentz wanted found and knew about in order to support their position.

Bella is old enough to talk and be clear, not by asking her questions, but normal day conversations. Was something she said seal this? At her age she does NOT know how to lie, she knows how to say NO. There is a big difference.
GP mention it to LE, LE knows or checks it out. An example...daddy took us to eat at LTF, or went to throw some big bags away...very simple but convicting IMO

IMO proof had to be provided the girls were in danger and not just hear say.
I think we all agree this in not normal at all to remove children from a biological parent to a family little is known about, especially when the parent has not been named POI or suspect.

 

[momto3kids]

Here now - not all PIs do that :crazy:

Patterns and routines are definitely a path for LE. I'm not gonna hold my breath for anyone to be charged tomorrow but I do supect there will be movement before the mid October hearing.

Did you notice the custody hearing is on his wedding anniversary??
75 days, not 60 or 90 days which I would have thought was the normal method.

A little below the belt hit IMO, if he doesn't win the children back.

 

[chauncey7381]

Has there been any speculation here about the 3rd search warrant? It doesn't list a location, could this mean LE is requesting phone records? When a warrant of this type is requested, would it list an actual location?

 

[Just the Fax]

Did you notice the custody hearing is on his wedding anniversary??
75 days, not 60 or 90 days which I would have thought was the normal method.

A little below the belt hit IMO, if he doesn't win the children back.

IMO, there will be an arrest before the custody hearing.
If not by then, they don't have a particularly strong case (no compelling forensics) and the investigation could stretch into 'years' while they carefully build a solid circumstantial case.

 

[Just the Fax]

Has there been any speculation here about the 3rd search warrant? It doesn't list a location, could this mean LE is requesting phone records? When a warrant of this type is requested, would it list an actual location?

The sealed SW (the one made public) in the Michelle Young case did not have a search subject or address...only the case #.

 

[raisincharlie]

RC.....
I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that any parents could come in and say...my daughter is dead, I have grandkids in danger, she is trying to get a divorce and he is controlling.

IIRC no physical abuse has been stated, nothing pertaining to the grandkids being abused.

Interact wasn't noted until the 25th, correct? IMO that wouldn't have pulled strings for the 16th.
Marriage counseling? No IMO, not abnormal.
SS not contacted per BC statement.
Ms Stubbs owed a favor? Absolutely NOT
Mr. Rentz pulling strings? No, the courts didn't know Mr Rentz from "Tom's housecat"

What, just what was so compelling to move those children quickly from BC???


So part 2....
If it was something so compelling I feel sure NC friends would have knew about it and have put in their affidavits. We heard nothing about his mistreat of the children. That was what these affidavits were essentially going to be for...BC not being a fit parent.

I really think a nod came to Ms. Stubbs on the 16th and that is all that was needed to get the ball rolling for those grandkids. I think it is something the Rentz wanted found and knew about in order to support their position.

Bella is old enough to talk and be clear, not by asking her questions, but normal day conversations. Was something she said seal this? At her age she does NOT know how to lie, she knows how to say NO. There is a big difference.
GP mention it to LE, LE knows or checks it out. An example...daddy took us to eat at LTF, or went to throw some big bags away...very simple but convicting IMO

IMO proof had to be provided the girls were in danger and not just hear say.
I think we all agree this in not normal at all to remove children from a biological parent to a family little is known about, especially when the parent has not been named POI or suspect.

I agree with your first part - there was something other than statements from friends or family that persuaded the judge to remove the children. However, I really have no idea what it was or from whom it came.

As to Interact - I believe it was IMHO03 that posted a link from Cary PD that shows that LE works with Interact and recommends Interact for services, which may include counsuling for children. How do we know Interact was not involved with the chilrdren the day Nancy went missing? We know there were assigned police cruisers infront of and behind the house to assist Brad - so it seems possible to me a service such as Interact may have been assisting the LE victims assistance officer - thats all I'm saying. There was a subpeona for Interact after the Ex Parte - we don't know what for - I have presented merely a possibility.

As to part 2 - I disagree the friends would put such information in their affidavits. JA clearly states, so does Hannah Pritchard, they both think Brad murdered Nancy -but neither say why. IMO, and having seen it done before in NC - LE has requested potential witnesses to a criminal case to be quiet about what they know. I think you can rule out their statements as an influence to a judge on the 16th - even if they made those statements infront of her.

A nod might have started things, but a nod did not provide the nexis for a judge to remove the children. There has to be more to this issue and it is something beyond the statements in the ex parte. We probably will not know this answer.

Bella may have seen something, she may have said something, a LEO may have heard it, a person trained in child trauma may have been present - we don't know but it is certainly possible. This is why I wonder about Interact - did they have a such a person present around those children for assistance, even if just to advise those caring for them?

What ever the reason, the judge felt justified within the law to remove the children - for the life of me I don't know how a judge could feel that way with the only document we have seen related to the ex parte.

 

[jilly]

IMO proof had to be provided the girls were in danger and not just hear say.
I think we all agree this in not normal at all to remove children from a biological parent to a family little is known about, especially when the parent has not been named POI or suspect.

Hi mom! Imo, the Court would have required more detail at the full hearing. This was an ex parte emergency application. As I see it, the mother of these children has been murdered, the grandparents have sworn out an affidavit stating that Brad attempting suicide as a teen and threatened to commit suicide in the winter of 2008 (which isn't that long ago).

LE attended (as I understand it) probably to verify that Nancy's death was a homicide and maybe to say that Brad has not been ruled out as a suspect.

The basis for their application was because of Brad's "emotional instability and intense scrutiny which he was facing as a result of the ongoing criminal investigation", there was "substantial risk of bodily injury to the children" while in his custody and that the "children may be removed or abducted from the State of NC for the purpose of evading the jursidiction of the NC Courts."

I think any Judge would have granted this. I personally think he would have been nuts not to.

 

[raisincharlie]

Hi mom! Imo, the Court would have required more detail at the full hearing. This was an ex parte emergency application. As I see it, the mother of these children has been murdered, the grandparents have sworn out an affidavit stating that Brad attempting suicide as a teen and threatened to commit suicide in the winter of 2008 (which isn't that long ago).

LE attended (as I understand it) probably to verify that Nancy's death was a homicide and maybe to say that Brad has not been ruled out as a suspect.

The basis for their application was because of Brad's "emotional instability and intense scrutiny which he was facing as a result of the ongoing criminal investigation", there was "substantial risk of bodily injury to the children" while in his custody and that the "children may be removed or abducted from the State of NC for the purpose of evading the jursidiction of the NC Courts."

I think any Judge would have granted this. I personally think he would have been nuts not to.

There you go - LE said something.

You doing okay Jilly ? :blowkiss:

 

[fran]

Yes, I do remember the Press Confrence where Nancy's sister said ---Nancy was a bit of a princess. I also think we can go back to the night of the party to an incidence that happened. Brad wasn't understanding what the 2 yr. old wanted and Nancy (scolded or corrected) him in front of all his friends, telling him he needed to learn to read the signals, because the child couldn't yet talk or express herself completly. I probably don't have this word for word, but the gist is there, the point I am trying to make is, this just isn't something a wife in a controlled relationship does in front of all her husbands friends.

FWIW, I've seen a wife say something like what Nancy said that night in front of friends. But...............she paid for it later!

Meaning he most likely verbally attacked her for that indiscretion. He would say something like, "Don't you EVER do that again! Embarrass me in front of other people!" The abuser MAY even threaten to kill them if they ever do that again, or say........break their neck!

So, it works both ways.

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

IMO, there will be an arrest before the custody hearing.
If not by then, they don't have a particularly strong case (no compelling forensics) and the investigation could stretch into 'years' while they carefully build a solid circumstantial case.

I agree with you. I believe there will be an arrest before the next custody hearing.

After all, BC practically challenged anyone to check out his statements as to the facts and truth! He just wasn't counting on anyone taking him up on it!

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

Has there been any speculation here about the 3rd search warrant? It doesn't list a location, could this mean LE is requesting phone records? When a warrant of this type is requested, would it list an actual location?

I don't know what or where they searched, but, IMO, there must be a reason why they even kept the 'WHERE' or 'WHAT' secret.

It's possible by the WHAT it could shed undo scrutiny on the WHO the SW involved.

Just a guess,
fran

 

[jilly]

There you go - LE said something.

You doing okay Jilly ? :blowkiss:

Yup! Thanks RC! Been away for a few days....catching up now!
That was just my guess about LE. Where I live, it takes awhile to get a death certificate and they probably would have needed something in Court.

Hope you're well too!:blowkiss:

 

[Bob&Bob]

Well, duh. Why didn't I think of that? Thanks!

I found this...
forum.howdesign.com

Apparently this is "Mike"/Michael Morwick?
I guess this rules out the idea that NC was planning on leaving the states that Saturday.

I thought she just got back from vacation?

 

[sues]

RC.....
I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that any parents could come in and say...my daughter is dead, I have grandkids in danger, she is trying to get a divorce and he is controlling.

IIRC no physical abuse has been stated, nothing pertaining to the grandkids being abused.

Interact wasn't noted until the 25th, correct? IMO that wouldn't have pulled strings for the 16th.
Marriage counseling? No IMO, not abnormal.
SS not contacted per BC statement.
Ms Stubbs owed a favor? Absolutely NOT
Mr. Rentz pulling strings? No, the courts didn't know Mr Rentz from "Tom's housecat"

What, just what was so compelling to move those children quickly from BC???


So part 2....
If it was something so compelling I feel sure NC friends would have knew about it and have put in their affidavits. We heard nothing about his mistreat of the children. That was what these affidavits were essentially going to be for...BC not being a fit parent.

I really think a nod came to Ms. Stubbs on the 16th and that is all that was needed to get the ball rolling for those grandkids. I think it is something the Rentz wanted found and knew about in order to support their position.

Bella is old enough to talk and be clear, not by asking her questions, but normal day conversations. Was something she said seal this? At her age she does NOT know how to lie, she knows how to say NO. There is a big difference.
GP mention it to LE, LE knows or checks it out. An example...daddy took us to eat at LTF, or went to throw some big bags away...very simple but convicting IMO

IMO proof had to be provided the girls were in danger and not just hear say.
I think we all agree this in not normal at all to remove children from a biological parent to a family little is known about, especially when the parent has not been named POI or suspect.

Why do you think it would be impossible for a 4 year old to lie? I have a 4 year old, and she *has* tried lying. ie. passing off a made up story for true. I've caught her every time because she never has plotted them well, but she has lied. Also, it would be very easy for someone to plant a thought in her head and then for her to think the thought originated with her. It happens every time.

 

[Just the Fax]

I thought she just got back from vacation?

She had accumulated 365 days vacation to use whenever she pleased.

Anywhere else , as sleeping with the enemy was no fun....turns out it was life ending.