Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #20

[raisincharlie]

Yes but Chart One (employer of Jason) didn't offer a reward.

No - they fired his sorry butt instead.

 

[RaleighNC]

My guess is that if he's charged, Cisco will fire him.

I also believe he's on administrative leave because Cisco's attorneys know what is / was in the SW. They have an obligation to protect their OTHER employees. Would you want to work next to BC right now?

This is a "feel good" way to keep him away from their offices and their other employees and to distance themselves from him professionally.

Year end bonuses come out next month - wonder if he'll be needing to pony up more $$$ for a retainer?

 

[SleuthyGal]

I wonder just how long they'll allow him to remain on 'administrative leave?' Like, if this thing stretches out into months (oh I hope that doesn't happen, but it could)... would they just keep him on perpetual admin leave? Or do you think at some point (say 3 months out or by 6 months) they'd cut their losses and fire him?

 

[momto3kids]

Yes but Chart One (employer of Jason) didn't offer a reward.

I changed it once I reread it. Thanks for clarifying it, just in case I had missed it.

 

[jilly]

No - they fired his sorry butt instead.

:toast: You're fast tonite RC! lol

 

[raisincharlie]

:toast: You're fast tonite RC! lol

I'm about out of gas Ms. Jilly :blowkiss:

Long hard day watching the Olympics, all that swiming has me tuckered out.

 

[EntreNous]

It's been a long day here, too.

Nytol!

:blowkiss:

 

[jilly]

I'm about out of gas Ms. Jilly :blowkiss:

Long hard day watching the Olympics, all that swiming has me tuckered out.

LOL - and here I thought you were going to say it was because of all your postings today! Haha

Good job RC! Don't know what we'd do without you around here!:blowkiss:

 

[jilly]

It's been a long day here, too.

Nytol!

:blowkiss:

Night EN - me too - gotta watch Swingtown! :saythat:

 

[momto3kids]

Roy you might think about that again - his actions are very important. For example if it was indeed his action to walk into a store at 420 am and buy cleaning products and then deny that to LE and they have proof - that action and denial says something pertinent to the case. If he walked into Lifetime Fitness and tried to use his wife's card on the day she is missing well that certainly says something doesn't it. Not all circumstantial evidence is physical in nature -

Wow RC....I just got to catch up on reading the posts tonight and have to say this LTF still has me :waitasec:

Can you imagine how panicked BC was to find out JA wanted to come over right away and he might have grabbed NC card to go by LTF? BC goes in asking about NC, they had to scan the card before they would give any information and it was hers and not his!

OR, he wasn't thinking straight presents his, proceeds to ask about her and stupidly gives hers over??? You know people do stupid things when they are trying to cover their :behind:

 

[SleuthSayer]

SS...this is the 1st time I mentioned Cisco helping to offer a reward.

Right, I wasn't referring only to you, but several postings have suggested that there is something suspicious and/or telling about the fact that Cisco has not offered a reward. The implication is that it is typical for big companies to offer up rewards in crimes involving family members of employees. Yet, I have yet to see any point to examples of it being done. It's just not how big companies work.

I also believe he's on administrative leave because Cisco's attorneys know what is / was in the SW. They have an obligation to protect their OTHER employees. Would you want to work next to BC right now?

He is on administrative leave because they don't want the distraction / awkwardness in people dealing with someone who is obviously at least one suspect in this crime. I'm not sure that that they consider him a general threat to other employees. The Cary police certainly know what's in the warrants. They also must not consider him to be a threat to the public at large, since they are letting him roam the town freely.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Wow RC....I just got to catch up on reading the posts tonight and have to say this LTF still has me :waitasec:

Can you imagine how panicked BC was to find out JA wanted to come over right away and he might have grabbed NC card to go by LTF? BC goes in asking about NC, they had to scan the card before they would give any information and it was hers and not his!

OR, he wasn't thinking straight presents his, proceeds to ask about her and stupidly gives hers over??? You know people do stupid things when they are trying to cover their :behind:

That indeed would be very stupid. If it's true that no member can get past that front desk without their membership card, and they enforce it 100% of the time no matter what, then if NC didn't have her card she couldn't have gone in, could she? I was trying to think why she might have gone in and the only thing I can think of is if she needed a drink from their water fountain and it was on her path. They might have been amenable to that if they recognized her as a member. Of course that presumes she actually went jogging that fateful Saturday morning and I don't believe that ever happened, IMHO.

And if BC had NC's card and mistakenly tried to use that...well.... hmmmm. Why would he have thought she would have been there at ANY time that morning?

Now my gym, which is much smaller, has either a sign in sheet at very slow times and has a dedicated staff member take member #'s during prime hours. But they get to know you and in my case, some of them know my member # by heart so I don't even have to say my #. There is no card scanning though, so it's a different system.

 

[cygnusx1]

Sure - check the dates in which Brad claims he stopped training for Ironman events in his affidavits - then go to his Adventures of Brad webpage - and check his blog entries - he says in his affidavit he quit in June of 2007 - yet on his webpage -he says he is back to training since the MBA was finished- he writes this in January of 2008. There's a lie there somewhere - may seem insignifiacnt but it shows he is capable of lying - infact it proves he is lying - either in the affidavit or on his website - a lie is a lie.

There is not proof of a lie there. According to his entry, it was his first run/ride in 5 months. You don't know whether he continued training after that first session unless you were training with him. SH affidavit #14 says "Brad relaxed his efforts to train for a triathalon..." You don't know to what period he was referring. If he could only run/ride once or twice a week, he may not consider that training. I certainly wouldn't. Or do you consider *any* exercise bewteen January and July to be training?

I might add he also said on his blog he intended to enter the July 20 2008 ironman event in Louisville.

So you never broke a publicly announced New Year's resolution? You never announced a project you were going to do and never finished it or even started it?

At the time of his announcement, his goal may have been to do the Lake Placid event. But is there proof of him actually registering? Is there proof of him training after his 10 Jan entry?

Here's what I see:

85-90% of the affidavits in support of the Rentz's motion are hearsay; "Nancy said Brad did..." There are a few incidents that were personally witnessed but not nearly enough to convince me she was abused.

80-90% of the affidavits in support of Brad are either observations by the affiant, or can be verified by records. Several of those affidavits are by those who would know first-hand if some of the hearsay were true or not; e.g. the preschool teachers say they have never witnessed anything the Rentz affidavits claim nor that BC's behavior/actions are different than most fathers. Certainly if one of them had witnessed the screaming/crying incident claimed in the Rentz affidavits, they would not have assented to an affidavit in support of BC.

If it was a different teacher that witnessed the screaming/crying incident, where is the affidavit from that teacher stating he/she personally witnessed the event?

MM's affidavit in support of BC is essentially cross-examination. He states a lot of hearsay in the one in support of the Rentz's. in the BF affidavit, he states that he did not personally witness *any* of what was claimed in his affidavit for the Rentz's.

If you put the Rentz's affiants on the stand, just about every single statement would be objected to and sustained as hearsay. For those statements that were objected to and overruled, there would be cross-examination that looked like MM's second affidavit.

So I'm on the not-enough-evidence-to-convict side of this debate; SO FAR.

I agree that he is suspect #1 and is most likely the perp. But that is opinion.
Show me the facts that prove that he did it and I'll say "Hang him!":behindbar

But the circumstances of his marriage are not proof of murder.

P.S. Has anybody done an OCR scan of the legal documents so they can be searched easier?

 

[momto3kids]

That indeed would be very stupid. If it's true that no member can get past that front desk without their membership card, and they enforce it 100% of the time no matter what, then if NC didn't have her card she couldn't have gone in, could she? I was trying to think why she might have gone in and the only thing I can think of is if she needed a drink from their water fountain and it was on her path. They might have been amenable to that if they recognized her as a member. Of course that presumes she actually went jogging that fateful Saturday morning and I don't believe that ever happened, IMHO.

And if BC had NC's card and mistakenly tried to use that...well.... hmmmm. Why would he have thought she would have been there at ANY time that morning?

Now my gym, which is much smaller, has either a sign in sheet at very slow times and has a dedicated staff member take member #'s during prime hours. But they get to know you and in my case, some of them know my member # by heart so I don't even have to say my #. There is no card scanning though, so it's a different system.

I am absolutely sure you will not get in without an ID even as an employee. The only way you can get in and I do not know the process is if you bring a guest. I don't believe this is the case since she was a member.

IMO he had absolutely NO reason to go there unless he had other intentions.

I guess he could go and ask the lady ....
Have you seen my wife ? She is over due in coming home and I had a tennis day planned. She is this tall, and has this color hair, etc. yup and so do the other 123 people that passed by today...LOL

 

[SleuthyGal]

Yes other intentions...like showing that he was concerned and looking for her (but only AFTER JA called and wanted to come over). THEN he got real interested in looking for NC and getting out of the house.

BTW...some things that I'm wondering:

- where did NC keep that LTF card anyway? In her purse? In her wallet inside her purse? In a gym bag? And why was her LTF card so convenient for him to pick up (if in fact he did pick it up either inadvertently or on purpose)? My card is always in my gym bag, and my gym bag is usually in my car.

- and when was the last time she used that LTF card anyway? And if the card was put away wherever she kept it then how and why would he have taken it with him? If it was just left on the counter then I guess it's easy enough to grab it...but I don't know why. And where did BC usually keep HIS LTF card? How could he mix them up?

- And this brings me back to her purse...where was that purse that morning? Already in the car? In the house and then placed in the car later? And whose car did he go in to "look for Nancy" that morning?

Hmmmmm....brain on overload.

 

[momto3kids]

I do know one thing that BC didn't do, because he certainly would have put it in his affidavit if he did..........

First call the hospital to see if an unidentified person came in to be treated or was being treated. Any place NC would have gone jogging that morning she would have been treated at Western Wake, unless she was critical.

Second call CPD since her jogging area was in their district. If NC had been hit or critically injured and air lifted to another hospital CPD would have knowledge of it.

BC simply did NOT do it. Period.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I am absolutely sure you will not get in without an ID even as an employee. The only way you can get in and I do not know the process is if you bring a guest.

so if he walked in and said he was looking to see if his wife happened to stop by there at some point he himself could not go past that front desk without a card being scanned to let him through, right? But he could have had the front desk person (or perhaps a mgr) check to see if her card had been scanned at some point...except wait...he has the card on him so that couldn't have happened.

My gym would absolutely let me grab a drink of water if I stopped by and needed one but wasn't staying to work out. But of course different gym, smaller gym, less formal gym.

See the fact that he even thought he should go to that gym is weird. If it's true that NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE can ever get past that front desk, no way/no how and he knew Nancy did not have her membership card with her, then there's no way she could have gone in there. So looking for her there would be pointless. It's a pointless step in the 'looking for NC process.' :bang:

 

[SleuthyGal]

I do know one thing that BC didn't do, because he certainly would have put it in his affidavit if he did..........

First call the hospital to see if an unidentified person came in to be treated or was being treated. Any place NC would have gone jogging that morning she would have been treated at Western Wake, unless she was critical.

Second call CPD since her jogging area was in their district. If NC had been hit or critically injured and air lifted to another hospital CPD would have knowledge of it.

BC simply did NOT do it. Period.

Yes! And if you recall, Scott Peterson never called a hospital to see if his VERY pregnant wife, Laci, had maybe gone into labor and was there... see these guys don't think like normal men because they're NOT normal caring humans...they have some screw loose and they can only approximate a caring person, but they miss normal things and it makes them look ever suspicious!

 

[momto3kids]

so if he walked in and said he was looking to see if his wife happened to stop by there at some point he himself could not go past that front desk without a card being scanned to let him through, right? But he could have had the front desk person (or perhaps a mgr) check to see if her card had been scanned at some point...except wait...he has the card on him so that couldn't have happened.

My gym would absolutely let me grab a drink of water if I stopped by and needed one but wasn't staying to work out. But of course different gym, smaller gym, less formal gym.

See the fact that he even thought he should go to that gym is weird. If it's true that NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE can ever get past that front desk, no way/no how and he knew Nancy did not have her membership card with her, then there's no way she could have gone in there. So looking for her there would be pointless. It's a pointless step in the 'looking for NC process.' :bang:

This is the question many of us have.
Why did he go there? She hadn't driven, because her car was at home. She jogged with only a stick of gum, no ID or cell, so why would she carry her LTF card?

If it's easy to get information about a member...BC could have called to ask. If he was denied information when he called, then he might have gone to the desk to prove who he was. But he didn't say he called 1st and was denied the information.

He says he spoke to the lady at the desk. What did he ask? He knows NC couldn't get in without an ID.

I don't have any idea where NC or BC kept their cards for LTF. My thing is this comes back to the purse in the car. It all ties in. From the beginning I said the purse is a red flag.

I don't know if he had NC card for LTF or where it was when he went to LFT, but he was in a panic and could easily messed up.

 

[SleuthyGal]

See, if he hung around to make phone calls, then he wouldn't be 'out of the house' and it sounds like he did not want JA coming over. So from a 'maximizing the search' standpoint it doesn't make any sense to run around Cary willy-nilly looking (esp. with 2 little kids in tow in their car seats)...but from a "get outta the house so no one comes over" standpoint, it makes perfect sense cause any excuse to get out and stay out is 'good enough' to keep nosy friends away.

The other thing I thought of is if the neighbor across the street from his house (DD?) happened to witness him leaving the house with the kids and putting the kids in the car and if that phone call with JA...the one in which he said the kids "were already in their seats in the car" occurred and THEN he was seen getting the kids out the door and in the car...well THAT would prove he was lying to JA. I was thinking how perfect it would be if JA just happened to call DD at that precise moment, telling her that he said he already had the kids in the car, ready to go, so no thanks, don't need you to come over to watch them...and THEN if DD witnessed him hustling the kids out of the house...

Oh man, that would be an excellent 'gotcha!'