Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #26

[jilly]

Guessing here - but he took the time to only put on one jog bra and nothing else because POSSIBLY it was getting close to time for the girls to wake? Katie was up at what? 4 am in one statment but 7:30 in another. Maybe the girls interrupted him?

That's what I think TG - he got spooked somehow.

Regarding the sports bras -
I have seen women in bras that have front zippers and back hooks but these women are very well-endowed.
Knowing that Nancy was 5'9 and seeing photos of her (one at a beach), I don't think Nancy was in that category and I think it's more likely that she would wear the pullover.jmy:twocents:

 

[jilly]

So in your opinion - anybody's opinion who cares to answer - is it easy to tell when he's fibbing and when he's telling the truth. Can you see the subtle differences and the glaring ones? I wish RC was here.

Well....aside from his fidgeting which others have observed, some of his answers are unbelievable. Take the $9K painting. We're talking about 9 Grand here and he told her she couldn't have it. She goes and gets it anyways and does he get upset? Not really. He let her know he was concerned but there was nothing they could really do about it because they couldn't take it back. If that was my dh, I would have been screaming mad!

 

[Anderson]

Agreed. You think she's been reading WS?

Difficult to tell . . .

 

[SleuthyGal]

See - that is why this is nuts. He said she went running, he also said she wore two bras. She was found with only one. Seems to me he has raised a suspicion by even saying this. The autopsy report says there was one. Brad said he read the report. Why would he even venture to say something like this. Ooooops moment- not sure why he even went there at all.

RC, this jumped out at me as well. I could not understand why he talked about this at all in light of how she was found. I don't know what he was thinking. I've never heard of someone wearing 2 jog halter/bras at one time.

And yes, the MH phone number lookup was also curious to me as well.

There were lots of 'huh?' moments as I listened.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Just to let posters know I got a reply from Diana. The memorial is private however she and the family are concerned because of the media. She was thankful for our support and said she's doing as well as can be expected considering. The following line is a direct quote from her email to me so I know she reads here. Out of respect of her and Nancy's other friends I will not quote her email in it's complete form.

You guys are fighting a good fight. Thank you again! I have hope that Nancy will find justice.

Diana

Thank you for checking into that, Topsail and letting us know!

 

[jilly]

I have to say, I'm just amazed with this discovery. The latitude which the attorney had is astounding. To me it sounds like something for a divorce case or wrongful death suit.
Is this all happening because the Judge has ruled that she won't ignore the elephant in the room?

He hasn't been charged with the murder nor has he been named a suspect.
He's made arrangements for his mother to come and live with them supposedly to look after the children. Lord help them two little girls after what I've read about his mother, but he is the biological father and he can appoint whatever caretaker he wants if he gets his children back.

If he passes those psych evaluations, I think he'll get the children. Aside from the 15 minutes that he left those children unattended while he was in the closet there's nothing to say that he's been negligent or abusive to those girls.

Having said all that, I guess we have to see what the Judge is going to do about that elephant.

 

[Anderson]

If he passes those psych evaluations, I think he'll get the children. Aside from the 15 minutes that he left those children unattended while he was in the closet there's nothing to say that he's been negligent or abusive to those girls.

Having said all that, I guess we have to see what the Judge is going to do about that elephant.

I think that some of the answers that Brad gave will help to substantiate the affidavits written by NC's friends. I believe that RC has already suggested this. Several affidavits emphasized that BC had not been very involved with the children. His inability to remember significant events may suggest that he was not involved.

HPs affidavit mentioned that a list which she has seen (first hand information) had information about the girls and financial infomation related to accounts and insurance:

Nancy found a disturbing note that Brad had written to himself, that Nancy found and showed to me. It had each girl's name listed on it with different facts underneath like Bella's favorite color is yellow, loves chicken nuggets. We found it quite strange since these were not things that you would forget. On the other side of the paper was a list of financial items like closing accounts, looking up blue books on cars and checking on life insurance policies.

When Brad was asked about lists, both he and his lawyers became nervous. He was asked if he wrote a list and he was asked about the children's favorite food and color. Perhaps they were looking for the list in her address books (didn't they also look through a hard copy?). So, his answers may help to build a case focused on his lack of involvement with the children.

LE has made it clear that they see some inconsistencies in his story. It will be interesting to learn more.

Just some thoughts.

 

[jilly]

I think that some of the answers that Brad gave will help to substantiate the affidavits written by NC's friends. I believe that RC has already suggested this. Several affidavits emphasized that BC had not been very involved with the children. His inability to remember significant events may suggest that he was not involved.

HPs affidavit mentioned that a list which she has seen (first hand information) had information about the girls and financial infomation related to accounts and insurance:

Nancy found a disturbing note that Brad had written to himself, that Nancy found and showed to me. It had each girl's name listed on it with different facts underneath like Bella's favorite color is yellow, loves chicken nuggets. We found it quite strange since these were not things that you would forget. On the other side of the paper was a list of financial items like closing accounts, looking up blue books on cars and checking on life insurance policies.

When Brad was asked about lists, both he and his lawyers became nervous. He was asked if he wrote a list and he was asked about the children's favorite food and color. Perhaps they were looking for the list in her address books (didn't they also look through a hard copy?). So, his answers may help to build a case focused on his lack of involvement with the children.

LE has made it clear that they see some inconsistencies in his story. It will be interesting to learn more.

Just some thoughts.

If this was a custody case between him and Nancy, imo she would win hands down. But it's not.

I can't see (in this case) where a father's lack of involvement can make him lose his children. This is based on what I've seen and read sofar.

Like I said before, the part about Brad being with Heather and leaving the children is the most disturbing. I think the Judge could certainly consider that to be a form of negligence. Maybe together with the psych evaluations, it will be easier for the Judge to rule against him.

 

[cygnusx1]

Agreed. You think she's been reading WS?

I've watched only the first video (Marriage) part of the second video, but...

I think she was fed questions by CPD that they wanted answered without naming him a suspect.

• How is computer ownership relevant to custody?
• How is email account ownership/access relevant to custody?
• How is his area of expertise relevant to custody?

His lawyers were played. Much of that was a police interrogation under the guise of a deposition. I don't understand why his lawyer had him answer questions she objected to based on relevance.

 

[ncsu95]

NC's friends have said that Brad was not very involved with NC and the kids, at least until some recent attempts over the last few months. Brad and co. have made a lot of the notion that her friends' affidavits are not necessarily truthful and based on NC's exaggerations. If he doesn't remember significant events, such as the details of multiple miscarriages, then that tells us that he was not very involved at some points in the marriage. Sounds like an OOPS moment to me, mainly because it gives credence to the affidavits written by NC's friends.

I don't think that anyone would think that he is lying about his inability to remember the details of these events. It just tells us something about the degree of involvement with his family.

My wife's friends might say the same thing about me with my daughter. My wife is a stay at home mom, so her friends always see her with my daughter. They don't see me teaching her to ride her bike (or roller-blading with her while she rides), or taking her to the pool all summer, or going to a field to play catch with a frisbee, or many of the other things I do one on one with my daughter. Add to it that NC and BC were divorcing and that NC apparently liked to exaggerate, and it would be easy to see why her friends didn't think he was very involved. How would they know unless she told them? Why would she tell them something positive about Brad since they were in "hate" mode.

Also, as has been pointed out by others, and by NCs friends...she led a very social life. She went out frequently in the evenings (if I remember the affidavits correctly). Who was watching the girls during these times? Who watched them in the mornings when she was doing her runs? BC was. So I think his "lack of involvement" is a bunch of bull. I doubt he's less involved than most dads where the dad works and the wife is stay at home. Obviously he had other activities like his MBA. But according to what he said (and I believe it), the MBA was something she encouraged. He also spent a lot of time training for ironman competitions. But she was training for a half marathon. I do half-marathon's as well (I did a full but it kicked my a$$, so I'll stick with halfs). I use the time I spend running to decompress from a job VERY similar to what BC does. Not the same company, but from what I heard today, very close to the same job, also in VOIP.

I've been reading this site since the murder happened. Again, I realize he is the person that probably did this. But I find it fascinating how every single thing he says or does is immediately spun into something nefarious here. I sincerely hope he didn't do this because those 2 girls don't need to lose their father as well. If he did, I hope they have real evidence to convict and he rots in jail. But I don't see how anything that has been shown to date comes remotely close to showing he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[ncsu95]

I have to say, I'm just amazed with this discovery. The latitude which the attorney had is astounding. To me it sounds like something for a divorce case or wrongful death suit.
Is this all happening because the Judge has ruled that she won't ignore the elephant in the room?

He hasn't been charged with the murder nor has he been named a suspect.
He's made arrangements for his mother to come and live with them supposedly to look after the children. Lord help them two little girls after what I've read about his mother, but he is the biological father and he can appoint whatever caretaker he wants if he gets his children back.

If he passes those psych evaluations, I think he'll get the children. Aside from the 15 minutes that he left those children unattended while he was in the closet there's nothing to say that he's been negligent or abusive to those girls.

Having said all that, I guess we have to see what the Judge is going to do about that elephant.

Unless he is arrested, he should get the children back. They are his children. They shouldn't have been taken from him to begin with. You guys talk about the emotional trauma of taking them out of their current living arrangements...how about the emotional trauma of having them taken from their dad by sheriff deputies. They were wrong to do it in the first place. If they believe he did it and can prove it, arrest him and then take the kids. But he deserves to have his children until such time as he is arrested for the crime. If he is arrested and acquitted, he should get them back when the trial is over. I doubt he will ever be arrested though based on what has been shown to date.

 

[MoonFlwr]

My wife's friends might say the same thing about me with my daughter. My wife is a stay at home mom, so her friends always see her with my daughter. They don't see me teaching her to ride her bike (or roller-blading with her while she rides), or taking her to the pool all summer, or going to a field to play catch with a frisbee, or many of the other things I do one on one with my daughter. Add to it that NC and BC were divorcing and that NC apparently liked to exaggerate, and it would be easy to see why her friends didn't think he was very involved. How would they know unless she told them? Why would she tell them something positive about Brad since they were in "hate" mode.

Also, as has been pointed out by others, and by NCs friends...she led a very social life. She went out frequently in the evenings (if I remember the affidavits correctly). Who was watching the girls during these times? Who watched them in the mornings when she was doing her runs? BC was. So I think his "lack of involvement" is a bunch of bull. I doubt he's less involved than most dads where the dad works and the wife is stay at home. Obviously he had other activities like his MBA. But according to what he said (and I believe it), the MBA was something she encouraged. He also spent a lot of time training for ironman competitions. But she was training for a half marathon. I do half-marathon's as well (I did a full but it kicked my a$$, so I'll stick with halfs). I use the time I spend running to decompress from a job VERY similar to what BC does. Not the same company, but from what I heard today, very close to the same job, also in VOIP.

I've been reading this site since the murder happened. Again, I realize he is the person that probably did this. But I find it fascinating how every single thing he says or does is immediately spun into something nefarious here. I sincerely hope he didn't do this because those 2 girls don't need to lose their father as well. If he did, I hope they have real evidence to convict and he rots in jail. But I don't see how anything that has been shown to date comes remotely close to showing he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Great post! :clap:

I am in a similar boat to you - have been reading since Nancy disappeared - have logically thought her murder through and realized that him doing it is probably the most likely situation, but hoped, for the girls' sake that it wasn't their dad

And I have also witnessed the 'spinning' of every infinitisemal detail about Brad on this forum....and, I must say, it becomes quite wearying.

 

[ncmomof2boys]

Anyone else notice when BC was asked about vaccuming his trunk on 11th, 12th, 13th, etc. that when Alice asked about the 12th he said 'NO' but slightly shook his head 'Yes'. I noticed this on a couple of other 'no' answers as well... :waitasec:

 

[Anderson]

My wife's friends might say the same thing about me with my daughter. My wife is a stay at home mom, so her friends always see her with my daughter. They don't see me teaching her to ride her bike (or roller-blading with her while she rides), or taking her to the pool all summer, or going to a field to play catch with a frisbee, or many of the other things I do one on one with my daughter. Add to it that NC and BC were divorcing and that NC apparently liked to exaggerate, and it would be easy to see why her friends didn't think he was very involved. How would they know unless she told them? Why would she tell them something positive about Brad since they were in "hate" mode.

Also, as has been pointed out by others, and by NCs friends...she led a very social life. She went out frequently in the evenings (if I remember the affidavits correctly). Who was watching the girls during these times? Who watched them in the mornings when she was doing her runs? BC was. So I think his "lack of involvement" is a bunch of bull. I doubt he's less involved than most dads where the dad works and the wife is stay at home. Obviously he had other activities like his MBA. But according to what he said (and I believe it), the MBA was something she encouraged. He also spent a lot of time training for ironman competitions. But she was training for a half marathon. I do half-marathon's as well (I did a full but it kicked my a$$, so I'll stick with halfs). I use the time I spend running to decompress from a job VERY similar to what BC does. Not the same company, but from what I heard today, very close to the same job, also in VOIP.

I've been reading this site since the murder happened. Again, I realize he is the person that probably did this. But I find it fascinating how every single thing he says or does is immediately spun into something nefarious here. I sincerely hope he didn't do this because those 2 girls don't need to lose their father as well. If he did, I hope they have real evidence to convict and he rots in jail. But I don't see how anything that has been shown to date comes remotely close to showing he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Everything that you say may be true. But, I am trying to look at the type of information that Ms. Stubbs is gathering to support the case that she is building. Several of the affidavits filed by NC's friends suggest that he has not been involved. The lawyer asked him questions that would help to support the other affidavits that we had seen. This doesn't mean that he is guilty and that was not the focus of my post -- I was drawing attention to one of the strategies used by the lawyer in building her case.

BTW, I have been reading these posts from the beginning, and I don't think it looks good for him, much like you. But that is not the point that I was making above.

 

[maconrich]

I don't think that anyone would think that he is lying about his inability to remember the details of these events. It just tells us something about the degree of involvement with his family.
(respectfully snipped)

That's how I'm seeing it (at this point anyway) --- meaning I'm seeing his inability to answer a lot of the questions as indications that he wasn't overly involved with his family.

The other thing that I have to take into consideration while watching these tapes is that no matter how good or how bad he comes off, Nancy will NEVER have the chance to sit down and answer questions or tell her side of the story.

Add to it the fact that *so far* everything is pointing to this man as being the one who decided that it was time for her to take her last breath - and that she'd take it as he strangled the life out of her. No, I do not and can not feel any sympathy toward him. None at all. But my heart is breaking for Nancy, those two precious little girls and her loved ones...

 

[SleuthyGal]

I don't understand why his lawyer had him answer questions she objected to based on relevance.

That is standard in depositions because the judge is not right there making a determination if the question is proper or not. The judge could later decide the objection is sustained and the record will reflect that ruling and the question and answer will be stricken. Alternatively, the judge might decide the question is fine and overrule the objection and the witness's answer is kept. It's a way to keep the proceeding going while making notations of what questions or line of questioning is in conflict for the judge to review and rule on.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Anyone else notice when BC was asked about vaccuming his trunk on 11th, 12th, 13th, etc. that when Alice asked about the 12th he said 'NO' but slightly shook his head 'Yes'. I noticed this on a couple of other 'no' answers as well... :waitasec:

I'll have to go back and look. You are really good at detecting micro-expressions NCMom!!

 

[jumpstreet]

That is standard in depositions because the judge is not right there making a determination if the question is proper or not. The judge could later decide the objection is sustained and the record will reflect that ruling and the question and answer will be stricken. Alternatively, the judge might decide the question is fine and overrule the objection and the witness's answer is kept. It's a way to keep the proceeding going while making notations of what questions or line of questioning is in conflict for the judge to review and rule on.

Good info - thanks. It was curious though, she objected to some things and told him to answer... and she objected to other things, and told him not to answer, and then finally for yet other things, they wanted to call the judge in 'real-time'.

Based on your post, why not have him answer everything, object 'for the record' as appropriate, and let the judge figure it out downstream. [ Again, to keep things moving along in general ]. In other words, why for some things is it okay to object but answer (to keep things moving along), but for other things defense objected, and didn't answer?

 

[jumpstreet]

It's often said that one doesn't win their case in the deposition room, but you sure can lose one. After reviewing - do y'all think BC lost the custody case with this deposition?

My thoughts: lots of interesting stuff, and lots of hints of things that may come up in the actual hearing, but he more than held his own.

Side bar: I haven't watched every single minute - do we know if BC invoked his 5th Amendment rights, even once during all the 7+ hours of questioning?

 

[Star12]

Good info - thanks. It was curious though, she objected to some things and told him to answer... and she objected to other things, and told him not to answer, and then finally for yet other things, they wanted to call the judge in 'real-time'.

Based on your post, why not have him answer everything, object 'for the record' as appropriate, and let the judge figure it out downstream. [ Again, to keep things moving along in general ]. In other words, why for some things is it okay to object but answer (to keep things moving along), but for other things defense objected, and didn't answer?

This deposition is for the custody hearing. That being said, the information revealed could be used in any other action raised against BC in the future. By objecting and then allowing him to answer the questions, his attorney is basically reserving her rights to exclude certain testimony in the future.