Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #19

[FlowerChild]

I'm going to completely disagree with you here. Nancy said she was in an abusive relationship. Not in the exact words, but by descriptions of the state of their marriage, it fits the profile of an abusive relationship. Add in the fact Nancy ended up dead, also, IF the husband did it, points towards ultimate control by the abuser.

As for the 'financial aspect.' It APPEARS, Nancy was trying to turn into a business, something she loved. Shopping and giving fashion advice to her friends, etc. This was just at about the same time Brad cut Nancy off of the credit cards. Of course it was the same time that Nancy had filed for the legal separation and Brad found out how much he had to pay, that he cut her off.

Oh........fiscally sound reasoning due to their financial condition. So, when Nancy gets cut off the credit cards and is given whatever Brad feels like giving her at the time for food, etc., each week, Nancy, trying again, begins doing 'chores,' for her friends for pay. But true to form, when Brad learns Nancy is 'working for money,' he decides to dock her weekly allowance, or perhaps not giving her anything, as she already had some from painting.

Anyone who thinks that is ok. Anyone that can find a good reason for Brad doing this, well, I just do NOT know what to say.

It's not right. Just not right. And now Nancy Cooper is dead.

JMHO
fran

If you read my entire post I never said ANYTHING about abuse, not abuse etc. ALL I said was Brad's cutting off Nancy's Credit Cards (and that alone) had NOTHING to do with her business succeeding or failing. Had Nancy wished to continue her business she could have, Brad was barely home and she had plenty of free time to devote to the business that Brad had no control over. Nancy could have continued with her business WITHOUT a single credit card or even a checking account - it might have been slightly more difficult, but she COULD HAVE DONE IT. I don't think Brad was aware enough of what Nancy did most of the day to care whether she had a side business for herself or not. Brad's control didn't seem to extend OUTSIDE the house with Nancy traveling and having social activities without Brad. She was socializing and running and doing things with her friends so she COULD HAVE MAINTAINED HER BUSINESS WITHOUT A CREDIT CARD.

I appreciate the links but I am aware of the definition of and behavior of controlling and abusive men. I have dealt with my share of men with "issues", and I graduated with a double major, the 2nd in in psychology. Knowing several professionals (closely) who deal with the issues of abusive and controlling mates (male AND female) I find the standard fare of material and information to lack SOLUTIONS to the problems, they expend a great deal of time describing the signs, and very little on the underlying causes and attempts to direct people to suitable shelter, therapy or behavior modification. Escaping abuse is a process, recognizing the signs and getting out is only the 1st step in a long, hard, intensely personal journey - one that sadly, some women do not have the mental strength or proper resources and support to make successfully. They deserve nothing of their fate, but we (as a society) still do very little to empower these women and support their journey.

I see many issues between Brad and Nancy ON BOTH SIDES and I am seeing some signs of alarming behaviors from BOTH partners in this relationship. I think both people in this marriage had faults and I see a general incompatibility in several key areas. And as I have said more than once, MONEY issues can be a make or break issue in even the healthiest and most loving marriages. Here, in addition to an apparent financial break, Brad and Nancy seemed to be splitting in different directions in other ways - Brad becoming more immediately career/future focused and Nancy more immediately family/personal focused - which BTW, isn't unusual with SAHM's with success driven husbands. I think Nancy wanted the kids to be her life and to have a devoted, indulgent husband -like she perceived her friends had and Brad wanted a life with an attractive career wife focused on him - as he percieved his friends and superiors to have. NEITHER was happy with the status quo and BOTH seemed very unhappy and determined to have something different. Not healthy but not a recipe for murder either.

Reading information about abusive relationships in general is great but we were NOT inside this relationship and we have just a few facts upon which to judge whether EITHER partner was abusive, manipulative or passive/aggressive.

I am awaiting more information before I jump on the "Brad is evil murderer incarnate" wagon. And I don't think my point about Nancy's business venture mentioned ANYTHING abouit abuse, guilt or the relationship outside of what MIGHT have been happening regarding Nancy's business. I still stand on my point that as to NANCY'S BUSINESS, Brad had NOTHING to do with it's failure or success. If Nancy had really wanted her business to thrive, she could have done so (with work) without an additional penny of further monetary investment. It was within NANCY'S control, and if it failed, it was on Nancy, not Brad. I find it NOT based in ANY FACT to say that IF Nancy's business was failing (or never took off) it was BRAD'S FAULT. I belong to a group of successful women business owners (some with Nancy's SAME business) and I have to say that based on THEM (and some started in much worse circumstances than Nancy's) Nancy COULD have made it work ON HER OWN without a Visa OR a dime - if she had wanted to. IF Brad killed Nancy I doubt her shopping/consultant business had any part of that outcome. The problems between Nancy and Brad were way deeper than Nancy's business.

My Opinion

 

[mahmoo]

A: BC did it (or arranged it): 78.2% chance
B: Person known to NC other than BC did it: 11.8% chance
C: Random crime: 9.75% chance
D: She's Alive & In A Witness Protection Program: 0.25% chance

Feel free to post or PM me, and I'll update poll. Will be interesting to see how the numbers change as more things become known.

JMO :blowkiss:

I gotta feelin' that 78.2 is gonna end up closer to 99.9

 

[Tink56]

And she had more to say here...
http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2400266&postcount=37

If this poster is for "real," and the other poster who responded (another former girlfriend), BC seems to have had and may well still have serious issues with women, in relationships, and in values.

(I'm reminded of the alleged petty way his mother treated Nancy--i.e. barring her (NC) from a dinner in her own home???? With this type of maternal figure, Brad probably had little respect for women. BTW--did anyone every figure out what was crossed off Momma Cooper's affidavit?)

I wish this poster would post again. However, when I read these earlier, I suspected that she stopped because BC could figure who she was, etc. I don't think I would like him angry with me...:shocked2:

Thanks for reposting these.

 

[mahmoo]

I hope anyone who wants to post here.............or send pm's to someone........realizes that they can do it anonymously and shouldn't be afraid to do it.

 

[fran]

If you read my entire post I never said ANYTHING about abuse, not abuse etc. ,My Opinion

Oh, I know you didn't mention abuse in your post. But that's MY point.

Money control WAS part of the abuse.

No matter what Nancy did, Brad overpowered her through threats or intimidation. She was beaten down. She may have had SOME freedom, but IMO, it was most likely only when Brad allowed it.

Nancy was also from a different country and her residency status was directly tied to Brad's job and his legal status. Nancy was trapped. She was trapped in a foreign country.

I don't believe any or all of the solutions that U.S. citizens could come up with or available to them apply here. I think this is something, at least for me, I don't know the procedures. Imagine having to deal with the volatile marriage day to day and know that just the wrong move and you could be deported, minus your children. She must have been terrified.

Nancy was Brad's victim and now she's dead.

I do not know how much of the marriage woes were Nancy's fault. But the fact that she's dead and one survived, I tend to think that she was out of her league. That's just me...

By all accounts Nancy's friends all say she was a really nice persone, etc. Her NOT loving husband said all sorts of NOT nice things about her. Of course, IMO, that's because he's trying to cover his bu** and the allegations of abuse which point to him as the perp.

Until there's an arrest, it runs 50/50. We'll just agree to disagree.

JMHO
fran

PS....And I DO believe Brad had EVERYTHING to do with Nancy being successful in business or not. HE held the purse strings and he used it to his FULL ADVANTAGE. Even to forcing Nancy and the kids to eat at friends. Yeah, he was a really indulgent husband. NOT...fran

 

[fran]

I wouldn't doubt if Brad hasn't had a few dimes (or would that be quarters or dollars?:crazy to LE about him.

I am fairly confident LE knows EXACTLY what they're dealing with here.

Could be why they're certain this is a solvable case.:behindbar

JMHO
fran

 

[EntreNous]

If this poster is for "real," and the other poster who responded (another former girlfriend), BC seems to have had and may well still have serious issues with women, in relationships, and in values.

(I'm reminded of the alleged petty way his mother treated Nancy--i.e. barring her (NC) from a dinner in her own home???? With this type of maternal figure, Brad probably had little respect for women. BTW--did anyone every figure out what was crossed off Momma Cooper's affidavit?)

I wish this poster would post again. However, when I read these earlier, I suspected that she stopped because BC could figure who she was, etc. I don't think I would like him angry with me...:shocked2:

Thanks for reposting these.

Tink, I think the person who responded to her is a man. If you're talking about Calgary. He and Brad had been roomates.

 

[mahmoo]

Until there's an arrest, it runs 50/50. We'll just agree to disagree.

JMHO
fran

Sorry for the snip fran........but............oh hell yeah I agree with you!!!:bow:

 

[fran]

Sorry for the snip fran........but............oh hell yeah I agree with you!!!:bow:

Why thank you. I needed that!


fran

 

[ncnative]

Thanks, EntreNous. That's the post by Brad's ex-girlfriend that I was specifically looking for. The "emotional roller-coaster" one, and why she broke up with him. By gosh, if there's a trial and he's the accused, they should call this ex in, for no other reason than to say "We found her on Websleuths" and she's got the goods on this guy's past behaviors.

Of course I'm not a lawyer and could never play one on TV.

 

[mahmoo]

Thanks, EntreNous. That's the post by Brad's ex-girlfriend that I was specifically looking for. The "emotional roller-coaster" one, and why she broke up with him. By gosh, if there's a trial and he's the accused, they should call this ex in, for no other reason than to say "We found her on Websleuths" and she's got the goods on this guy's past behaviors.

Of course I'm not a lawyer and could never play one on TV.

I'm surprised "the press" missed her post here. It had kind of sunken to the back of my memory.......but, now that it's been brought up again......we should all re-read it and not forget it......it was very telling............IMO.

 

[Fairy1]

I see many issues between Brad and Nancy ON BOTH SIDES and I am seeing some signs of alarming behaviors from BOTH partners in this relationship. I think both people in this marriage had faults and I see a general incompatibility in several key areas. And as I have said more than once, MONEY issues can be a make or break issue in even the healthiest and most loving marriages. Here, in addition to an apparent financial break, Brad and Nancy seemed to be splitting in different directions in other ways
My Opinion

Me too FC, but only one of these partners is alive to tell the story. I believe most of us post our opinions based on our own experiences and we cannot project those experiences on to this case. When my first marriage was falling apart, I spoke to NO ONE about it. Many people, including my own family, were shocked when I left. But in time and, in retrospect, everyone understood it. I do have some concerns about what NC told her friends. Seems almost like a "set up" to me. I say this believing whole-heartedly that BC is the murderer in this case.

 

[EntreNous]

Flower Child said...
Here, in addition to an apparent financial break, Brad and Nancy seemed to be splitting in different directions in other ways - Brad becoming more immediately career/future focused and Nancy more immediately family/personal focused - which BTW, isn't unusual with SAHM's with success driven husbands...

Holy cow, I think we're following two different cases here.

Brad becoming more immediately career/future focused? Yes, that Ironman thing, his elaborate website devoted to SELF, his affair with HM, etc. doesn't strike me as being career/future focused at all.

And Nancy more immediately family/personal focused? She was doing labor work for friends to make money, which sounds much more survival focused. I doubt seriously she bought too many Prada bags from painting a friend's dining room. Hardly "personal" focused. But what puzzles me more is your assertion that Brad is career focused and Nancy personal focused when it was Nancy that was trying to start a business from scratch. That sounds pretty career focused to me.

I'd like to ask you just how many of these women you know, who have created successful businesses, are from a foreign country and only here under their husband's work visa, thus prohibited from working in the US? Prohibited from any assistance from the Chamber Of Commerce, prohibited from government grants or any other programs for American women in business? Then and only then should you apply the additional challenge of being in the midst of an extremely stressful marriage at it's end with a man who doles out restrictions on a whim.

So to sum it up...

Ironman & self serving website devoted solely Brad = career/future focused

Starting a business & painting friends houses = family/personal focused

 

[chauncey7381]

MAHMOO---

Threads back you wanted to know why I'm leaning towards BC's innocence.

1). He says he didn't do it.
2). He's cooperated with LE.
3). He states he last saw her around 7 a.m. to run (no one has disputed that yet)
4). He's not been named a suspect or a POI
5). CPD is still casing the neighborhood, asking for info, leads, I know of at least three occasions.
6). Not enough factual info public yet to fall off the fence.

I have no idea who murdered Nancy Cooper, in reading the affidavits, which are opinions, hearsay gossip etc., it's clear there are many conflicting stories. It could be a scorned lover, a complete stranger, a jealous housewife.

I gotta scoot, I work in RTP, not far from Cisco, believe me, many PhD's, professionals wear long sleeve shirts, I always have a sweater or sweatshirt in my office.

Somebody please post where WS crowd is meeting Sat morning! I might attend!

Too bad about the US Gymnasts!

 

[MoonFlwr]

MAHMOO---

Threads back you wanted to know why I'm leaning towards BC's innocence.

1). He says he didn't do it.
2). He's cooperated with LE.
3). He states he last saw her around 7 a.m. to run (no one has disputed that yet)
4). He's not been named a suspect or a POI
5). CPD is still casing the neighborhood, asking for info, leads, I know of at least three occasions.
6). Not enough factual info public yet to fall off the fence.

I have no idea who murdered Nancy Cooper, in reading the affidavits, which are opinions, hearsay gossip etc., it's clear there are many conflicting stories. It could be a scorned lover, a complete stranger, a jealous housewife.
I gotta scoot, I work in RTP, not far from Cisco, believe me, many PhD's, professionals wear long sleeve shirts, I always have a sweater or sweatshirt in my office.

Somebody please post where WS crowd is meeting Sat morning! I might attend!

Too bad about the US Gymnasts!

Pretty good point: Co-operating with LE.

In trying to think about who else, besides Brad, could be responsible for Nancy's death..I have tried to consider alternative things, too.

The suggestions you put forward above, seem worth thinking about. Less so, the complete stranger one, because of what the Police Chief said re 'an isolated incident'.

Still on the fence and hoping so badly that it was not Brad.

 

[momto3kids]

MAHMOO---

Threads back you wanted to know why I'm leaning towards BC's innocence.

1). He says he didn't do it.
2). He's cooperated with LE.
3). He states he last saw her around 7 a.m. to run (no one has disputed that yet)
4). He's not been named a suspect or a POI
5). CPD is still casing the neighborhood, asking for info, leads, I know of at least three occasions.
6). Not enough factual info public yet to fall off the fence.

I have no idea who murdered Nancy Cooper, in reading the affidavits, which are opinions, hearsay gossip etc., it's clear there are many conflicting stories. It could be a scorned lover, a complete stranger, a jealous housewife.

I gotta scoot, I work in RTP, not far from Cisco, believe me, many PhD's, professionals wear long sleeve shirts, I always have a sweater or sweatshirt in my office.

Somebody please post where WS crowd is meeting Sat morning! I might attend!

Too bad about the US Gymnasts!

It would be wonderful for the children's sake if BC was innocent..they would have the familiar surroundings they so much need, friends, school, and not to mention their dad.

After seeing yesterdays request by NC's parents to have the hearing on Sept. 22...I assume moved up from Oct 13 there is a ?? as to why. I believe Sept is approx.(60 days)when the DNA is expected back and they want the custody case behind them. Another red flag IMO.

I was on the fence until last week and I didn't fall to the innocent side for BC.
Even though he hasn't been named a suspect or POI, he has to know deep down he is. Why the heck was a SW done on Cisco? It was because BC is the focus IMO.

Because he says he didn't do it means he didn't? I believe most who are guilty of murder go to trial still saying they are innocent, why would BC be any different?

LE still casing the neighborhood is IMO to show NO ONE saw NC jogging like BC states she did. The other reason is possilbe they would love to have someone identify a vehicle driven by BC to the dump site.

 

[raisincharlie]

It would be wonderful for the children's sake if BC was innocent..they would have the familiar surroundings they so much need, friends, school, and not to mention their dad.

After seeing yesterdays request by NC's parents to have the hearing on Sept. 22...I assume moved up from Oct 13 there is a ?? as to why. I believe Sept is approx.(60 days)when the DNA is expected back and they want the custody case behind them. Another red flag IMO.

I was on the fence until last week and I didn't fall to the innocent side for BC.
Even though he hasn't been named a suspect or POI, he has to know deep down he is. Why the heck was a SW done on Cisco? It was because BC is the focus IMO.

Because he says he didn't do it means he didn't? I believe most who are guilty of murder go to trial still saying they are innocent, why would BC be any different?

LE still casing the neighborhood is IMO to show NO ONE saw NC jogging like BC states she did. The other reason is possilbe they would love to have someone identify a vehicle driven by BC to the dump site.

Mt3K,

The September 22 hearing is for the motion concerning the psych evaluation only, not a revisit of the custody issue.

 

[momto3kids]

Mt3K,

The September 22 hearing is for the motion concerning the psych evaluation only, not a revisist of the custody issue.

Thanks RC...I thought they would do this all in 1 hearing.

Are you saying they get the results before the hearing for custody and get to hash it out before hand? IDK if this is best to know the results before the hearing. IMO it could tip the scale, and maybe not in favor of the Rentz's. In my eyes I would rather have it all presented on the same day with testimony so the judge gets the entire pkg all in 1 day.

Now, if it does come back with some serious issues pertaining to BC are you thinking the Oct 13 hearing will just be behind closed doors, with no testimony needed?

 

[raisincharlie]

Sorry, RC, but the manner in which you asked the questions, followed by your statement of "I see." led me to believe that they weren't REALLY questions, but that words were being put into my mouth.

I hope SS doesn't mind me quoting her, but this post answers your questions better than I can say it:



I'll add that I do not necessarily think the conferences after Nancy's death was declared a homicide should have been disallowed. I never said that. I just thought those particular pressers were odd in that the floor was yielded to the family who didn't take questions about the crime but about Nancy as a person.

I apologize if I've offended you in some way RC. Just discussing the case here, like everyone else.

I'm pretty simple - you tell me something is not typical or odd - I am going to ask questions. If you are going to tell me I am untruthful - then I will either admit so - if I am, or question you if I think not. Here's my wrong -I said "pretty much stopped" which obviously to some means stopped. I should have said over 3 days the family said nothing on one day, answered media questions on the second, and provided details of memorial events on the third - my wrong.

Had the floor been given to the family to talk about the crime - that would have been extremely odd and definitely should not have been allowed, and in this case was not allowed. I will repeat, this started as a missing persons case that ended very badly, but that does not mean the families should be given the cold shoulder by LE after a change in the case status has been determined.

I do not find anything odd about the family being given time after LE was done with their thing to respond to the press if they wished, to talk about Nancy, to even tell the children were okay and to announce memorial services planned. I do not find it odd this occurred after an LE presser, while everyone was already assembled. As to LE providing this, they merely left the podium after they had their say - they merely allowed it but within guidelines - no comment about the investigation or crime. LE also provides officers to escort them about, help them obtain appropriate resources, lodging, mental assistance and grief counsulling if needed. This happens all the time in missing persons cases - which is what this began as. This treatment by LE is not uncommon or odd or even atypical. Brad could have done the same things, he obviously chose not to for his own reasons, there is nothing odd or atypical about it. Check out some other current cases - it is obvious it is a common occurance - don't take my word for it.

 

[momto3kids]

I have also noticed the spotlights on in the back of his home. I also noticed how he pulled all the blinds and 3 of the windows upstairs he has the top half open to be able to look out. The bottom half of the window are shut tight.

I have seen BC at home outside not too long ago in his garage.

Need to make a change to this post from yesterday...going to Crossroads last night the 3 window blinds upstairs are now closed tight.