Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #24

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
raisincharlie said:
Wonder if those rainbow flip flops were his then since he likes bright colors ? :crazy:

So tell me - Corso Como high heels - expensive or reasonable in price?
Click to expand...


You know RC...this might be what broke the camel's back. She found BC wearing her clothes behind her back....
 
sunflowers said:
i agree. He would have wanted to dump Nancy's body when it was dark & before there was much activity (cars, runners, etc). and before the girls woke up.

he would have added the HT trip so that he could "explain" why he was out at that hour, if anybody saw his car going or coming. plus, he needed to do some cleaning! apparently, a lot of cleaning.
Click to expand...

ITA with each and every word.

And BC's "story" about Katie around 4 am and both of them being up to help he thought would add verisimilitude to his story just in case someone did notice he was up and driving about and going to HT.

I NEVER woke up my husband to help me take care of a child in the night. Wouldn't think of it, and he probably wouldn't have done it, anyway. So that's a stupid story, IMO.

Nancy was tired - she'd made ribs for DD's dinner party, wasn't feeling good anyway, was upset with BC, and had gotten home from the party after midnight. No way that woman was going to start doing laundry at 4 am. I would settle my child, and then go back to sleep myself.

And in his aff., didn't BC say "he" noticed after he got back from HT where he bought milk at 6:15 am, that they were out of laundry soap?. He had gotten up and something about anticipating the girls getting up he noticed the lack? So he says Nanct asked him to go back out for the soap, and he left again at 6:30 to go back to HT to get the laundry soap. Makes no sense. And he says NC called him and asked for the juice. So at 6:45, there he was at HT again, buying laundry soap and juice. (And then he drives home, puts car in garage, walks through the laundry room, then into the kitchen, where NC is supposedly getting breakfast for Bella, waiting on the juice. And then at 7:00 am, he hears a door slam as NC went off to go running. And he still hadn't seen Nancy. No idea what she was wearing.

Aw, ya know, none of this makes any sense. I can't even go on with this to try to make it come out reasonable. Waaay too inconsistant, and I'm waaaay too tired.

His stories are "close" to the truth. Just not close enough, IMHO, to be believable.

I'd have to hear the jury instructions before I decide if I would convict. But I believe he did it.
 
Star12 said:
ITA with each and every word.

And BC's "story" about Katie around 4 am and both of them being up to help he thought would add verisimilitude to his story just in case someone did notice he was up and driving about and going to HT.

I NEVER woke up my husband to help me take care of a child in the night. Wouldn't think of it, and he probably wouldn't have done it, anyway. So that's a stupid story, IMO.

Nancy was tired - she'd made ribs for DD's dinner party, wasn't feeling good anyway, was upset with BC, and had gotten home from the party after midnight. No way that woman was going to start doing laundry at 4 am. I would settle my child, and then go back to sleep myself.

And in his aff., didn't BC say "he" noticed after he got back from HT where he bought milk at 6:15 am, that they were out of laundry soap?. He had gotten up and something about anticipating the girls getting up he noticed the lack? So he says Nanct asked him to go back out for the soap, and he left again at 6:30 to go back to HT to get the laundry soap. Makes no sense. And he says NC called him and asked for the juice. So at 6:45, there he was at HT again, buying laundry soap and juice. (And then he drives home, puts car in garage, walks through the laundry room, then into the kitchen, where NC is supposedly getting breakfast for Bella, waiting on the juice. And then at 7:00 am, he hears a door slam as NC went off to go running. And he still hadn't seen Nancy. No idea what she was wearing.

Aw, ya know, none of this makes any sense. I can't even go on with this to try to make it come out reasonable. Waaay too inconsistant, and I'm waaaay too tired.

His stories are "close" to the truth. Just not close enough, IMHO, to be believable.

I'd have to hear the jury instructions before I decide if I would convict. But I believe he did it.
Click to expand...

Sure makes me wonder who the real embellisher was. I don't think Nancy held a candle to him really in that department after reading this stuff he told LE and how he didn't answer certain things. Dumber than a rock he is, I think.
 
Star12 said:
ITA with each and every word.

And BC's "story" about Katie around 4 am and both of them being up to help he thought would add verisimilitude to his story just in case someone did notice he was up and driving about and going to HT.

I NEVER woke up my husband to help me take care of a child in the night. Wouldn't think of it, and he probably wouldn't have done it, anyway. So that's a stupid story, IMO.

Nancy was tired - she'd made ribs for DD's dinner party, wasn't feeling good anyway, was upset with BC, and had gotten home from the party after midnight. No way that woman was going to start doing laundry at 4 am. I would settle my child, and then go back to sleep myself.

And in his aff., didn't BC say "he" noticed after he got back from HT where he bought milk at 6:15 am, that they were out of laundry soap?. He had gotten up and something about anticipating the girls getting up he noticed the lack? So he says Nanct asked him to go back out for the soap, and he left again at 6:30 to go back to HT to get the laundry soap. Makes no sense. And he says NC called him and asked for the juice. So at 6:45, there he was at HT again, buying laundry soap and juice. (And then he drives home, puts car in garage, walks through the laundry room, then into the kitchen, where NC is supposedly getting breakfast for Bella, waiting on the juice. And then at 7:00 am, he hears a door slam as NC went off to go running. And he still hadn't seen Nancy. No idea what she was wearing.

Aw, ya know, none of this makes any sense. I can't even go on with this to try to make it come out reasonable. Waaay too inconsistant, and I'm waaaay too tired.

His stories are "close" to the truth. Just not close enough, IMHO, to be believable.

I'd have to hear the jury instructions before I decide if I would convict. But I believe he did it.
Click to expand...

This is why they say it is harder to remember the lie you told than the truth. He has his story all over the board on this.

I bet he is happy to read what he told the LE since he doesn't seem to remember himself or I bet he wouldn't have put half of what he did in his affidavit! He has totally contradicted himself.

I don't think the best of lawyers can get him out of this timeline and lies he has told.
 
raisincharlie said:
Sure makes me wonder who the real embellisher was. I don't think Nancy held a candle to him really in that department after reading this stuff he told LE and how he didn't answer certain things. Dumber than a rock he is, I think.
Click to expand...

No, Bubba, I think he's really smart. Just doesn't have any walking around sense, is all. And not even a smidgen of cleverness.

From all I've seen or read about BC, seems he doesn't even have much of a personality. At least, not one that I would find entertaining, nor engaging. Pfffffaaa, maybe he is dumber than a rock. He tries to lie, but screws himself up with his tangled web of deceit. :liar: <--Pinochinose
 
RC, wasn't it Sheriff Harrison who corrected the story that she was found not in the water?
 
Having no family and friends here he is going to be one lonely guy in prison. NO visitors! If SH stoops to this low of a task and does visititation then he is in the dumbest club right along with BC IMO
 
Star12 said:
RC, wasn't it Sheriff Harrison who corrected the story that she was found not in the water?
Click to expand...

Dunno - I saw it in another press report - found in the dirt according to WRAL - haven't seen a direct quote from Sheriff Harrison.
 
CyberPro said:
Saddest Party Ever....

The suspected fingernail was listed as being pink.

Did the picture show NCs hands? Were her nails polished pink?

CyberPro
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm pretty sure her fingernails are pink in that shot. You can see that if you enlarge the photo.
 
Did anyone say there is a 3rd SW that was not revealed or was it determined it was released today? Sorry...of all days for company, shopping and cooking...:(
 
momto3kids said:
Did anyone say there is a 3rd SW that was not revealed or was it determined it was released today? Sorry...of all days for company, shopping and cooking...:(
Click to expand...

I believe that we don't know for sure. It seems that the computers are probably the 3rd SW, although they may covered under the office SW. RC suggested that it was possible that there may be one more that the media has not commented on. Someone will probably have more information.
 
Y'all are good!! I've been in a brain blur reading the docs and know I'm going to have to read them several more times to try to get a decent grasp of things. Loved reading all the comments and ideas here though!

With the sw's, there are a few things that jumped out at me or at least are sticking in my mind. First off, I have to agree that BC's statements just feel off/don't click. From both of them getting up (and staying up) to tend to the child at 4am to him cleaning the house because he'd trashed it while Nancy was on vacation. I mean, seriously, she'd already cleaned up his mess and they'd already fought about it! So for him to use that as an excuse is just lame.

Add to it the fact the cleaning supplies were in her bathroom -- with the way they were getting along, he was cleaning her bathroom?? I don't think so. Plus, while I'm not doubting that he had plans for tennis at 9:30, I don't think starting heavy-duty cleaning a half hour before you're supposed to be there is something most people would do.

With the water, for now I'm having to go with what's in the documents - even though she could have been in water due to the heavy rains. But intentional or not it was probably to his advantage (possible destruction of some evidence).

Could he have used the rug to carry her? Wouldn't be a unique idea, and would have made it a little easier to carry her / move her around? And the veg material from the car... I'm inclined to think it came from the trunk area or at least wasn't something they thought was random (a spill from one of the kids eating, etc). But who knows.

The nail was interesting esp since NC got the expensive manicures and all. Surely if she had a broken nail it would be noticable and unusual, so I'm really hoping that they hit on something with that (some BC skin under it would be perfect!!) Likewise, her keys and phone (and potential prints like y'all mentioned) being found inside was suspicious.

With his car, everything to do with it bothers me. From hoovering just the trunk, to the grass on the passenger seat, to the hair. All of it. Forensically, bands seem iffy, but they'll know if it's her hair and probably if it was pulled out or fell out. --I don't want to think about how the hair could have gotten in those areas right now. The receipts could be interesting esp if he was wining and dining someone on the side.

Would luminol have been mentioned if they used it?? Could this process have done in the garage or would they have needed to take it elsewhere for testing?

Why would they take the NCSU graduation program??? That just seems a little random - unless they were they looking for names or something?

She asked him where her white shirt was?? uh, ok. :waitasec: Why on earth would he even say something like this??

And is it standard for four LEOs to be present during an initial 'missing person' incident? Or could the number have been more to do with JA's tone and suspicion (during the 911 calls and/or when the first LEO arrived)?
 
momto3kids said:
I bet he is happy to read what he told the LE since he doesn't seem to remember himself or I bet he wouldn't have put half of what he did in his affidavit!
Click to expand...

Wouldn't BC have already had access to the home SW (and the associated affidavit from LE) prior to him writing up his custody affidavit?
 
I tend to buy shoes in the $100 range, and my parameters are comfort, fit and style, and my income has been quite modest. However, for their bracket, I wouldn't find $150 - $200 range unreasonable. Probably about the same for her running shoes. If I still wore heels, I would love to have these. Dara, $169. Link is from Zappos http://zapp.me/z7411378

The company uses boxes and tissue paper that has is recyclable, donates portions of sales to charities, leather is naturally treated. I think Nancy chose her shoes well.
 
Star12 said:
I NEVER woke up my husband to help me take care of a child in the night. Wouldn't think of it, and he probably wouldn't have done it, anyway. So that's a stupid story, IMO.

...No way that woman was going to start doing laundry at 4 am. I would settle my child, and then go back to sleep myself.


Aw, ya know, none of this makes any sense. I can't even go on with this to try to make it come out reasonable. Waaay too inconsistant...
Click to expand...

Star,

Yes, but you see, this is your husband you are talking about. You know, the average run of the mill husband. Not "SuperDad"! :) In truth, I have gotten up in the midst of the night to assist with a sick child, but I have to admit that I was a bit bleary eyed and not as long on patience as usual.

We have also had soiled laundry at strange hours, and there is NO WAY we are going to start the wash until a more suitable hour.

CyberPro
 
FWIW, at the time the SW is served, LE must give the owner of the property a copy of the SW. Anything that is confiscated must be inventoried and a receipt given to the owner. Therefore, IMO, Brad and his attorney knew what was taken from the home prior to the custody hearing.

Brad most likely turned the copy of the SW and receipt over to his attorney. The attorney then, most likely, went over the SW with a fine-tooth comb to be sure LE stayed within the boundries of what was sought in the 'signed by a judge' SW. IF something was taken that was NOT included, it COULD be disallowed in the event of a court case.

I'm not sure IF with regard to the SW served at Cisco, Brad would have been privy to. I know Cisco would be given a copy of it and an inventory of anything taken. It WOULD have been prudent, on Cisco's part, IF they took anything like CD's photos, discs, and such, for them to copy them prior to LE taking them into their custody.

Seems Brad has got himself in a little pickle here. Inconsistant statements is NOT a good thing. A different story on the second day Nancy was missing. HIS story doesn't match EVERYONE else's with regard to how he NORMALLY acted. Brad said Nancy never took anything with her except a piece of gum, YET, everyone else said she ALWAYS took her keys and cell phone.

I know many have gotten concerned about those of us who've compared this to the Laci and Scott Peterson case, so I hate to say it, but..........Brad should have payed closer attention, it was the MOP and clean up that was suspicious to LE IMMEDIATELY. Looks as if old Brad was under suspicion from the get-go. JUST like SCOTT Peterson.

Cookie cutter scenario of a 'behind closed doors' abusive relationship. It's almost as if there's an epidemic of this. Perhaps it's just that people are now recogizing what previously was swept under the rug. Prior to the popularity of the internet and 24/7 news shows and programs like Greta and NG, just imagine how many of these guys got away with this. Just imagine. :(

JMHO
fran
 
jumpstreet said:
Wouldn't BC have already had access to the home SW (and the associated affidavit from LE) prior to him writing up his custody affidavit?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's only the inventory taken or he gets to see the affidavits from the LE. I'm sure someone on here can answer that, since IDK.

He should've done much better and been consistent if he had used the timeline and statements from the 12th he gave to the LE if they were available to him when he did the child custody affidavit. He had several days to put it together. He knew it was coming up.

Look at this scenario ...

on the 12th he tells the LE he got up at 4am with Katie. Actually spent hours with her, took her to the home office, etc. Lie #1.:eek:

If there was EVER a reason to mention this, it would be in the custody affidavit. He does NOT mention it at all!! The purpose of that affidavit was to show how he was a good, caring father, but just happens to fail to remember this?:confused: IIRC, he states he was getting prepared for the girls to get up after he returned from HT at 6am

The point is he can't remember what he told to who and when he told it.

K&B should have caught this as well IMO! They all failed the test........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 67 more.
Total: 3,276 (members: 68, guests: 3,208)

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
3,208
Total visitors
3,276
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,180
Messages
18,168,681
Members
232,116
Latest member
janeyd
Back
Top