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

[jmflu]

He is saying suspicions doesn't confirm guilt. Evidence does.

Correct, and I agree. But our suspicions are based on evidence. Mounds and mounds of it.

 

[raisincharlie]

Correct, and I agree. But our suspicions are based on evidence. Mounds and mounds of it.

I don't think I have seen any real evidence, lots of hints at evidence, but I really don't think I have seen any other than that Nancy was found and her death was ruled a homicide. Not being argumentative, just honest.

 

[jumpstreet]

I don't think I have seen any real evidence, lots of hints at evidence, but I really don't think I have seen any other than that Nancy was found and her death was ruled a homicide. Not being argumentative, just honest.

RC... I have newfound respect for you (not that I didn't already have plenty)

 

[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.

Daphne this question stayed in my mind for a while for some reason. Having slept on it, it dawned on me this morning why. Of course the statement in the Ex Parte comes to mind - that Nancy never went running. Since Mr. Rentz described to LE what he taught Nancy, I have to wonder if he also told LE what Nancy may have said to him to prompt him to teach her this defensive mechanism. Could be nothing, but am wondering if there is more reason for it to have been brought up in the sw affidavit than is being stated in the affidavit, that being a justification as to why she always carried her keys. Seems to me someone forgeting their keys isn't exactly a big deal. Pretty much a huge coincidence that she happened to forget them on the day she disappears however. Dunno, just studying and thanks for the thought

 

[raisincharlie]

RC... I have newfound respect for you (not that I didn't already have plenty)

Honesty only goes so far - I still think he murdered his wife and threw her out like the garbage.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I don't think I have seen any real evidence, lots of hints at evidence, but I really don't think I have seen any other than that Nancy was found and her death was ruled a homicide. Not being argumentative, just honest.

I mostly agree, though I would include the following as items of evidence:

- his statements and contradictions of his own statements (both by him and by others) since that is evidence that can/will be used in a trial.

- The marks observed on the back of his neck.

- His timeline and variations of that, including the fact that he has said he was 'up' at 4am.

 

[jumpstreet]

- His timeline and variations of that, including the fact that he has said he was 'up' at 4am.

It's a good point regarding the timelines. As I posted before, I'm really puzzled on why the timeline in his custody affidavit didn't align more closely (and corroborate) many of the things in the timeline that LE had put in their warrant.

If I'm guilty, that would seem a solid opportunity to document a consistent story. It therefore strikes me as weird/odd that they don't align more precisely.

Here's a question: Surely the oldest daughter was asked (if not by LE, then by family, and maybe also by LE) what she recalls from the morning of. If she has no recollection of seeing and/or speaking with mommy on the morning of the 12th - to me, that would be a significant 'smoking gun'.
[ Presumably by now, LE (and/or the family) would at least have the datapoint of what (if anything) the oldest child recalls of mommy on the morning of the 12th ]

Either way, it's pretty big datapoint: If the oldest speaks to seeing mommy at any point after 4am, that's very good to know. If the oldest speaks to not seeing mommy at all on that morning (or only seeing her "sleeping"), that's pretty huge too.

Do we have any reports (even if secondhand), of the oldest child saying anything about mommy on the morning of the 12th?

 

[raisincharlie]

I mostly agree, though I would include the following as items of evidence:

- his statements and contradictions of his own statements (both by him and by others) since that is evidence that can/will be used in a trial.

- The marks observed on the back of his neck.

- His timeline and variations of that, including the fact that he has said he was 'up' at 4am.

I agree his statements/contradictions and statements by others will be brought into a trial if and when there is one but other than marital issues am not sure it prove he murdered nancy, motive can possiblely be assigned but that is about all.

The marks on his neck - right now I don't see anything that proves Nancy inflicted those, the detective couldn't seem to determine the cause either and Brd said nothing, so for now I don't know that this is proof of a fight or a murder.

To me the fact that he admitted to being up at 4am means little at this point. For me however, this admission does cast some doubt about a 420 trip to HT. Insanity to admit this if he can be seen on a video at HT at 420 am. JMO, it does suggest to me that if he murdered his wife it was after 4 am.

 

[Daphne69]

Daphne this question stayed in my mind for a while for some reason. Having slept on it, it dawned on me this morning why. Of course the statement in the Ex Parte comes to mind - that Nancy never went running. Since Mr. Rentz described to LE what he taught Nancy, I have to wonder if he also told LE what Nancy may have said to him to prompt him to teach her this defensive mechanism. Could be nothing, but am wondering if there is more reason for it to have been brought up in the sw affidavit than is being stated in the affidavit, that being a justification as to why she always carried her keys. Seems to me someone forgeting their keys isn't exactly a big deal. Pretty much a huge coincidence that she happened to forget them on the day she disappears however. Dunno, just studying and thanks for the thought

Hmmm. Something to think about. It does seem odd that Mr. Rentz would mention it unless it is simply to disprove Brad's story that she went running. (Rentz: "Something's wrong. She wouldn't go running without her keys. I taught her how to use them for self-defense and she always takes them.")

Maybe NC had her house keys when she walked in Friday night/Sat morning and never sat them down?

 

[raisincharlie]

Hmmm. Something to think about. It does seem odd that Mr. Rentz would mention it unless it is simply to disprove Brad's story that she went running. (Rentz: "Something's wrong. She wouldn't go running without her keys. I taught her how to use them for self-defense and she always takes them.")

Maybe NC had her house keys when she walked in Friday night/Sat morning and never sat them down?

According to her friends, she slept with her keys on her person, so if true, she would not have put them anywhere, especially near the front door since her goal was to keep Brad out of the X5.

 

[Daphne69]

To me the fact that he admitted to being up at 4am means little at this point. For me however, this admission does cast some doubt about a 420 trip to HT. Insanity to admit this if he can be seen on a video at HT at 420 am. JMO, it does suggest to me that if he murdered his wife it was after 4 am.

I'm not following you here. Doesn't admitting he was up at 4 am seem like some half-hearted (but not very smart) attempt to explian being seen around 4 am, trip to HT included? I admit he should've said he had to go the store for something for Katie then.

Also, I don't get how this would imply he murdered her (if he did :winko after 4 am. It's just his word that NC was also awake then. Nobody can verify except Katie, who is pre-verbal according to affidavits.

 

[raisincharlie]

I'm not following you here. Doesn't admitting he was up at 4 am seem like some half-hearted (but not very smart) attempt to explian being seen around 4 am, trip to HT included? I admit he should've said he had to go the store for something for Katie then.

Also, I don't get how this would imply he murdered her (if he did :winko after 4 am. It's just his word that NC was also awake then. Nobody can verify except Katie, who is pre-verbal according to affidavits.

Just my thought on it - sorry to confuse. To me admitting he was up at 4 am gives a reason for why lights might have been on in the house. But I have a real problem thinking this guy is dumb enough to tell LE he went to the store twice - and in an affidavit for custody defines the time as between 6 and 7 am at the HT where it is being claimed he supposedly went at 420 am. This is based on all the conversations here about the surviellance - one can watch themselves enter the store according to locals. It does not make sense to me.

There also may be some truth to him being up at 4 with Katie, and it is as possible a fight started at this time as it is that a fight started at midnight when Nancy came home.

 

[jumpstreet]

JBut I have a real problem thinking this guy is dumb enough to tell LE he went to the store twice - and in an affidavit for custody defines the time as between 6 and 7 am at the HT where it is being claimed he supposedly went at 420 am. This is based on all the conversations here about the surviellance - one can watch themselves enter the store according to locals. It does not make sense to me.

This is along the same lines as a general sticking point with me also: the apparent inconsistency between the timeline/noteworthy-events he knew LE to have, and the timeline/noteworthy-events he subsequently documented in the custody affidavit.

If guilty, why not do a better job of aligning those things, ensuring there were no apparent inconsistencies.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Seemingly 'smart' guys trip themselves up all the time....he could be subconsciously sabotaging himself for committing murder...or he could think that no one's keeping really close track of every thing he says. Or he is used to lying and thinks people will believe whatever he tells them because he's not used to being questioned/analyzed. Hard to say WHY, but he did and is tripping himself up.

I personally believe the murder happened around 1am and no later than 2am. I don't see how he accomplished a murder around 4am, getting her into the car, dumping her at the site AND getting to HT where he is allegedly seen buying laundry detergent at 4:20am. That doesn't sound right to me and I believe the 4:20am HT visit. IMHO, of course.

 

[raisincharlie]

This is along the same lines as a general sticking point with me also: the apparent inconsistency between the timeline/noteworthy-events he knew LE to have, and the timeline/noteworthy-events he subsequently documented in the custody affidavit.

If guilty, why not do a better job of aligning those things, ensuring there were no apparent inconsistencies.

Some are assuming there are inconsistencies - the question is are there really ? He tells LE he is up at 4am, he admits to making two trips to the store, he also admits to taking Katie to his office area after these two trips, he also says Nancy was looking for a certain shirt so she can go running, he also admits he hears the door open and close and assumes Nancy left. Other than the 4am time - there are no times assigned in the sw affidavit as to when these events occurred. I don't see how an inconsistency exists without times being assigned to these events.

The only real inconsistencies we have truly heard is on FOX he says Nancy left at 6:30 to 7 - the only other times are listed in his affidavit for custody which was made after he had time to go through receipts to verify times. I don't see where the inconsistencies are coming from myself.

 

[SleuthyGal]

He tells police he was cleaning from 9am to 1pm

He says in his affidavit that at 12:30pm he goes looking for Nancy (he also told JA in a phone call he was doing this too).

In his affidavit he mentions a planned tennis game at 9:30, with postponement, then cancellation. In his statement to police he says nothing about plans to play tennis and keeps with the cleaning from 9am to 1pm.

Please refer to my post on the inconsistencies thread for additional timeline inconsistencies.

 

[raisincharlie]

Seemingly 'smart' guys trip themselves up all the time....he could be subconsciously sabotaging himself for committing murder...or he could think that no one's keeping really close track of every thing he says. Or he is used to lying and thinks people will believe whatever he tells them because he's not used to being questioned/analyzed. Hard to say WHY, but he did and is tripping himself up.

I personally believe the murder happened around 1am and no later than 2am. I don't see how he accomplished a murder around 4am, getting her into the car, dumping her at the site AND getting to HT where he is allegedly seen buying laundry detergent at 4:20am. That doesn't sound right to me and I believe the 4:20am HT visit. IMHO, of course.

I respect that opinion but let me ask you - if he murdered her at 2 am how did he manage getting her into the car, taking her body to the disposal site and getting to HT by 420 am ? Is this any different than murdering her at 4 am, getting her into the car, taking her to the disposal site and getting to HT by 620 am ?

 

[jumpstreet]

Some are assuming there are inconsistencies - the question is are there really ?

Yeah, good point, perhaps there are no hard inconsistencies between the two threads/timelines.

Certainly though, some things are emphasized more in one and not the other. In the custody affidavit timeline (which presumably was an attempt to respond to the various implications (public and otherwise) occurring at that time), while at the same time, in general trying to substantiate he is a worthy father; there is no mention of getting up at 4am to take care of one of the girls (iirc). Also, there is no mention of speaking hours cleaning while waiting for NC to return. He mentions canceling the tennis plans, but doesn't mention cleaning in the meantime.

Maybe that's no big deal, but if I were guilty, and I knew that LE already had the view of those key happenings, I would make a point to ensure that there was better alignment, with similar events noted. The 2 timelines, if not inconsistent, at the least seem somewhat disjoint to me. It's curious.

 

[raisincharlie]

He tells police he was cleaning from 9am to 1pm

He says in his affidavit that at 12:30pm he goes looking for Nancy (he also told JA in a phone call he was doing this too).

In his affidavit he mentions a planned tennis game at 9:30, with postponement, then cancellation. In his statement to police he says nothing about plans to play tennis and keeps with the cleaning from 9am to 1pm.

Please refer to my post on the inconsistencies thread for additional timeline inconsistencies.

I don't think we know everything he told LE - I doubt everything is in the sw affidavit.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I respect that opinion but let me ask you - if he murdered her at 2 am how did he manage getting her into the car, taking her body to the disposal site and getting to HT by 420 am ? Is this any different than murdering her at 4 am, getting her into the car, taking her to the disposal site and getting to HT by 620 am ?

My theory is predicated on that 4:20am HT visit being REAL (I know, it has not been verified by any official, but I do believe it and am basing my assumptions from that).

If there really was no HT visit at 4:20am then yes, he very well could have dumped her at 6am. I think it comes down to if you give any credence to a 4:20am HT visit to purchase laundry detergent (or not). I understand the need to have official confirmation from a LE type. Right now I believe it.