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

[raisincharlie]

But I always pay close attention because you see things logically plus pick up on so much that I tend to overlook. (I tend get ticked off at something and then the emotions take over blurring the logic. With the sw's it was his declarations of ownership that had me po'd to no end and back.)

Pictures are good! - hopefully NC was able to inflict some damage that will help convict her killer. And, yes the keys make much more sense than nails for the reasons you provide!! Hmmmm...wonder if they tested them for his dna or bits of skin??

Maconrich - I found the location of the car and house keys to be a red flag. Unfortunately - the location of the keys was noted by LE on the 12th - the day Nancy went missing. Also noted in the affidavit was the FACT that the spare key to the X5 was secured inside the X5. This pretty much confirms what the friends claimed - that Nancy always kept her keys with her so Brad could not get into items she kept secured in the X5. That is why finding the key by the front door was IMO a huge red flag.

Looking through the inventory, there is no listing for the keys or for Nancy's cell phone. At this point I would say there is not a high likelyhood that LE has possession of either the keys or her cell phone.

 

[Star12]

RC: What was noted in the affidavit about the key was what the interviews with friends said. I didn't see anything that said it actually was found in the SUV.

 

[raisincharlie]

RC: What was noted in the affidavit about the key was what the interviews with friends said. I didn't see anything that said it actually was found in the SUV.

Some of the friends affidavits talk about Nancy always having the keys, even sleeping with the keys on her person because she did not want Brad to get into things she kept in the X5. Page 4 of the affidavit, middle of the third paragraph describes where the keys (X5 and house key) were found. Page 5 of the affidavit near the bottom of the last paragraph confirms the spare key to the X5 was secured inside the X5.

 

[jumpstreet]

Looking through the inventory, there is no listing for the keys or for Nancy's cell phone. At this point I would say there is not a high likelyhood that LE has possession of either the keys or her cell phone.

There was a phone and charger procured from the workplace if I recall. That struck me as somewhat odd. There was also the statement that BC made a trip out to the workplace sometime after the 12th...

 

[Star12]

nnnnnhhh, RC, am I blind, or what? The last paragraph of page 5 details the cleaning of the trunk of the sedan, and the receipts and stuff in the passenger area. I don't see anywhere where it says the spare SUV key was found.

 

[raisincharlie]

There was a phone and charger procured from the workplace if I recall. That struck me as somewhat odd. There was also the statement that BC made a trip out to the workplace sometime after the 12th...

I was aware of the phone and charger being taken from his office but can't say I can conclude anything about it. At that point, if it turns out to be Nancy's, any fingerprints or DNA of his on the phone should be expected and that source of potential evidence is erased. Don't need to have the phone to get the records for it though.

 

[Star12]

On page 3 is the detail from the friends intervies, and where it says "A spare key....was secured... is still a summary of the friends' interviews. Is that what you are meaning? To me it is not saying they actually found it there. If you read the last 3 lines on that page you can see it is a recap of what the interviewees had said.

 

[raisincharlie]

On page 3 is the detail from the friends intervies, and where it says "A spare key....was secured... is still a summary of the friends' interviews. Is that what you are meaning? To me it is not saying they actually found it there. If you read the last 3 lines on that page you can see it is a recap of what the interviewees had said.

From my experience - facts are routinely checked. The pictures showed LE in the X5 - you think they didn't verify ? I believe they did.

 

[Star12]

From my experience - facts are routinely checked. The pictures showed LE in the X5 - you think they didn't verify ? I believe they did.

Bubba, I do believe, I do believe they found it, too. But what I was taking issue with is where you said it was a FACT, and belief isn't that. I do wish they had been more specific -- and also wish they had said more about Nancy's writings documenting BC's actions, which are mentioned. I, too, kept a daily diary, which proved very valuable for my atty. :coffeecup: Theres a little treat for you!

 

[raisincharlie]

Bubba, I do believe, I do believe they found it, too. But what I was taking issue with is where you said it was a FACT, and belief isn't that. I do wish they had been more specific -- and also wish they had said more about Nancy's writings documenting BC's actions, which are mentioned. I, too, kept a daily diary, which proved very valuable for my atty. :coffeecup: Theres a little treat for you!

I can see how such a daily diary would indeed be very useful. Lets hope Nancy's provides significant information. Guess this might explain why K & B wanted Ms. Stubbs removed from the custody case ?

I see your point. No problem. Most of the time I am on another planet and forget others aren't there.

The location where the keys were found still remain a red flag for me however.

 

[jumpstreet]

Okay, well then, in that case, let's just discuss the issues in the case and should any of those issues point to the possibility of BC being innocent, we can discuss that then. No sense beating a dead horse in a coat of many colors, eh?

Gee, I guess I thought it was a reasonable question (given the recent warrant unsealing, and the recent discussions on the board) whether or not there was anyone whose personal opinion still allowed for the possibility (however small) that BC didn't commit the crime.

I didn't necessarily see that query as 'beating a dead horse' or anything - sorry if it seemed that way to you.

Seems there are some here that have zero doubt that BC did it (and don't allow for any possibility that he didn't), and there are some (myself included), that do at least concede that there remains a chance (if not highly likely) that he's innocent. I respect everyone's opinions/positions though, and hopefully my posts are consistent in showing that respect (it's certainly my intention)

Hopefully all respectful perspectives/analysis/queries are still welcome on the board, and again, sorry if you felt the question was 'beating a dead horse' (still not sure exactly why).

Anyway, for some specific things that strike me as supporting innocence, I'll post that separately (found the specifics posted by rwesafe to be of interest).

 

[Daphne69]

RC, about the keys. Did Garry Rentz specify how he taught Nancy to hold her keys? When I read that, I thought about the way I'd been taught: Keys are held with the keyring in your palm and each key poking out between your fingers, hand closed. (Like a spiked fist.)

If NC held her keys like that, I don't see the keys making the scratches. I was thinking more along the lines of BC being over NC -- choking? hitting? -- (facing each other) and her getting her arm around the back of his neck. Explains the scratches being light and the possible fingernail.

 

[CyberPro]

Gee, I guess I thought it was a reasonable question (given the recent warrant unsealing, and the recent discussions on the board) whether or not there was anyone whose personal opinion still allowed for the possibility (however small) that BC didn't commit the crime.

I didn't necessarily see that query as 'beating a dead horse' or anything - sorry if it seemed that way to you.

Seems there are some here that have zero doubt that BC did it (and don't allow for any possibility that he didn't), and there are some (myself included), that do at least concede that there remains a chance (if not highly likely) that he's innocent. I respect everyone's opinions/positions though, and hopefully my posts are consistent in showing that respect (it's certainly my intention)

Hopefully all respectful perspectives/analysis/queries are still welcome on the board, and again, sorry if you felt the question was 'beating a dead horse' (still not sure exactly why).

Anyway, for some specific things that strike me as supporting innocence, I'll post that separately (found the specifics posted by rwesafe to be of interest).

Jumpstreet,

I am open to the possibility that BC is innocent. I do not really believe that he is, but I am open to the possibility.

This is the first case that I have been following on WS, but my wife watches a lot of the cable news shows, and I picked up a lot on the Laci case by osmosis. I do not watch much TV at all, so I was not paying rapt attention, but I got many of the details.

I told her while that case was going on that if SP was innocent, he could give lessons for a fee on how to act guilty. I believe that BC falls into that same category. His actions, situation and inconsistent story and timelines aggregate to make him look very guilty.

We do not have all the facts yet, and some of the things that we are treating as facts might have a different explanation, some of the things you would really need to see for yourself, like the marks on his neck. I can envision a situation where he was really upset during the argument or something where he reached up and grabbed the back of his own neck and left some marks, but I think there are other explanations that make more sense, given the situations.

I am over 97% sure he is guilty, I think he is solely responsible, but there could be an accomplice. I am willing to hold back from 100%, but just barely able to hold back.

CyberPro

 

[wirehair]

There is a broad range when talking about behavior disorders. Some people exibit extreme controlling behaviors while someone with a moderate problem who also lives with a strong person can not get by with as much. An extreme person would probably choose a weaker partner who would submit readily sometimes out of fear or just not wanting to buck the other partner. Sometimes a weaker person becomes stronger over time and that is when the problems start. The controller feels the need to control but also sees the power to control easily being lost due to the partner becoming stronger emotionally. The controller then may cross the line to violence in order to maintain control. Nancy had a very large support group. I'm sure over the years it made her a strong woman. Maybe over time she realized that she didn't have to give to the control and that is when the problems started. Abuse is the weapon of a coward.

 

[reddress58]

Bubba, I do believe, I do believe they found it, too. But what I was taking issue with is where you said it was a FACT, and belief isn't that. I do wish they had been more specific -- and also wish they had said more about Nancy's writings documenting BC's actions, which are mentioned. I, too, kept a daily diary, which proved very valuable for my atty. :coffeecup: Theres a little treat for you!

I agree with Star here. It was not stated as such in the SW's. We are assuming.

 

[raisincharlie]

RC, about the keys. Did Garry Rentz specify how he taught Nancy to hold her keys? When I read that, I thought about the way I'd been taught: Keys are held with the keyring in your palm and each key poking out between your fingers, hand closed. (Like a spiked fist.)

If NC held her keys like that, I don't see the keys making the scratches. I was thinking more along the lines of BC being over NC -- choking? hitting? -- (facing each other) and her getting her arm around the back of his neck. Explains the scratches being light and the possible fingernail.

I have no idea Daphne. I don't even know how that would be taught to tell you the truth - will take your explanation however.

I try not to go into theories of how something went down except for obvious things. It seems it never fails that when something goes to court, LE has infinitely more information on which to base their theory of how things happened and the order in which they happened.

 

[raisincharlie]

I agree with Star here. It was not stated as such in the SW's. We are assuming.

So are you still assuming he went to HT at 4 am ?

 

[Anderson]

I believe that it is within the realm of possibility (maybe small) that he did not do it.

I was married to a man who was diagnosed with NPD. It was a horrendous experience. Brad does not seem that controlling to me as he lacks many of the characteristics that are common with those consumed with their own perceived image and those that would only serve as an extension of his image. He seems like a man who did not want to risk coming home only to find that his children had been taken away from him. It is entirely possible that NC had convinced him that it would be best for the girls to be in Canada with her and maybe at one point it seemed logical to him and then, after much thought, not so much. Perhaps he offered her up alternatives and she would not consider anything other than taking the kids to Canada. I'm not saying I would kill someone to keep them from taking my kid, but if taking their passport would prevent it, that passport would be in my possession under lock and key!

I looked through all of the pictures I can find on the various sites that had pictures that showed NC's hands. None of the pictures show her nails painted or with gel or acrylic type nails. Not to say she did not paint them before the party....

There was also a statement in a presser where the family was in attendance and the BL spoke for them...that I found a bit enlightening, simply because it came from her twins husband....I don't recall the words verbatim, but I'm sure you can find it in the media section where the BIL indicates that Bella, is doing fine, she is strong willed and will let you know when she does not like something you say or do...he then states, Nancy was always like that too. I think that this makes Nancy sound like a very strong woman, not one who could easily be controlled. Not typically the type a NPD'd person would have any interest in.

I'm sure my husbands hair is my trunk too and I tend to take him to the airport in my car and he sheds like a dang cat and it is always stuck on his black luggage (he is blonde). Just out of curiosity, because I am always digging my very active childs toys out from under my car, I checked to see if there was any hair in my fender well, and there was indeed. Not completely out of the realm of possibility that if it was her hair, she was often doing the same. It also appeared I had run over something disgusting :sick:

Anyway, I hope that he did not do it, for the sake of those little girls....

Have a look at the "saddest party ever" picture on the memorial site (she has her arms around her friends shoulder). Her nails look like they are painted pink in that picture, although you have to blow it up to see. Tell me if you think I am wrong, though.

IMO, I think that Brad was clearly controlling. We have counted the ways so many times: withholding passports and money, possible threats to commit suicide etc. I believe, according to the affidavits, at one point he was telling NC to leave with the children. He may have changed his mind when he realized what the separation was going to cost.

Thanks for your comments based on your experience with BC, RKAB. They certainly add to this picture. You are brave.

BTW, I think that the dress is black (could it be dark green?) in that picture, rather than green. We are still just assuming that this picture was taken on July 11th.

 

[raisincharlie]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

There is a broad range when talking about behavior disorders. Some people exibit extreme controlling behaviors while someone with a moderate problem who also lives with a strong person can not get by with as much. An extreme person would probably choose a weaker partner who would submit readily sometimes out of fear or just not wanting to buck the other partner. Sometimes a weaker person becomes stronger over time and that is when the problems start. The controller feels the need to control but also sees the power to control easily being lost due to the partner becoming stronger emotionally. The controller then may cross the line to violence in order to maintain control. Nancy had a very large support group. I'm sure over the years it made her a strong woman. Maybe over time she realized that she didn't have to give to the control and that is when the problems started. Abuse is the weapon of a coward.

 

[jumpstreet]

I am open to the possibility that BC is innocent. [...]
I am over 97% sure he is guilty, I think he is solely responsible, but there could be an accomplice. I am willing to hold back from 100%, but just barely able to hold back

Good stuff - thanks Cyber - well put.