Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #8

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
d99gr81 said:
Again thats another part of the so called facts that people just believed because some poster on here put a shady web site where they say they spoke to friends who claimed this...that being he had an affair. No name was given of whom they spoke with who made this claim. The officials have not released any information on evidence they have. Everything being said is pure speculation and hearsay. I am just trying to wait till I hear official facts before convicting the guy. Truth is they have released none. Honestly if some of the things people have claimed on here to be factual there would be no reason not to arrest him.

I think its funny that people on here say theres no way he has time for his family because of the time spent for work and school and running... yet on the flip side its so easy to believe he had time to have an affair. Again I am not saying he didn't do it... just saying we have been told nothing. The fact that they haven't arrested him convinces me many of the claims on here are not true.
Click to expand...


Welcome d99! Thanks for bringing in different POV. All welcome.

I believe the affair for us came up because it is in the legal docs that he was having an affair...we didn't just pull that out of the air.

As far as the bleach....IIRC in pressors they will not confirm/deny...do think that is at all telling? I am thinking of the store trip was ludicrious, they would say straight up and discount it...they won't give straight answer and we have seen it inquired about several times.

Is this the question that 'caught him off gaurd' posters? I don't remember what was said, but DO recall that one of you made a comment that something said made his mouth drop a bit??

Again welcome d99..and all those who have joined to help work through this.

Welcome_we_love_new_members_mice.gif
 
I guess the point I am trying to make is there is no official release of many of the huge claims on this site. People who all ready have him convicted stretch things out as truths with out really knowing. I propose this question:

If the Video of him buying bleach combined with scratches were true what reason could they have to not arrest him?

My point is one poster on here saw him wearing long sleeves and went right on to say they saw scratches. I saw the same footage and I saw nothing like that. But others took it and ran with it. In fact that particular day he wore long sleeves there was a major storm that day. My 7 year old wears long sleeves and pants to school sometimes when its 95 degrees outside.... I ask him why in the world its so hot..he just says..I like them.

Heres another example. The woman who's baby is missing and didn't report it... People immediately convicted her yet its looking like her baby was taken and she is protecting her child.

List me all the official facts the we absolutely know... so I can see how many of you are convinced all ready he did this.
 
raisincharlie said:
So you are saying that a court document which a District Court Judge signed off with the statement that the Rentz's have met their burden of proof and therefore should have custody of the children is nothing but speculation and herarsay ? You are aware the Judge also took testimony from LE when considering this matter correct? Are you saying LE misled the Judge as well as the Grandparents ? Interesting.
Click to expand...

I agree that the petition for custody contains the allegations, but where do you get that Law Enforcement testified in the civil matter? The only official reference that I've seen was the Chief's press conference, where she said that they'd take the information in the petition into consideration, but she seemed to take great pains to separate the civil case from her police department.

As far as I'm aware, LE testimony has not been mentioned in any article from the local news stations or the News & Observer. Perhaps some tabloid program or some national media article has said it and I haven't seen it, but as far as I know, LE participation has only been assumed by this forum and once again, the Chief gave absolutely no indication.

Oh, and nothing in the petition implies that the family had received any inside information from the PD.
 
christine2448 said:
Welcome d99! Thanks for bringing in different POV. All welcome.

I believe the affair for us came up because it is in the legal docs that he was having an affair...we didn't just pull that out of the air.

As far as the bleach....IIRC in pressors they will not confirm/deny...do think that is at all telling? I am thinking of the store trip was ludicrious, they would say straight up and discount it...they won't give straight answer and we have seen it inquired about several times.

Is this the question that 'caught him off gaurd' posters? I don't remember what was said, but DO recall that one of you made a comment that something said made his mouth drop a bit??

Again welcome d99..and all those who have joined to help work through this.

Welcome_we_love_new_members_mice.gif
Click to expand...

Well my view is they say the will not speak of any evidence...so they can not say that and then deny something in the next sentence.
 
Magister said:
I agree that the petition for custody contains the allegations, but where do you get that Law Enforcement testified in the civil matter? The only official reference that I've seen was the Chief's press conference, where she said that they'd take the information in the petition into consideration, but she seemed to take great pains to separate the civil case from her police department.

As far as I'm aware, LE testimony has not been mentioned in any article from the local news stations or the News & Observer. Perhaps some tabloid program or some national media article has said it and I haven't seen it, but as far as I know, LE participation has only been assumed by this forum and once again, the Chief gave absolutely no indication.

Oh, and nothing in the petition implies that the family had received any inside information from the PD.
Click to expand...


Page 1 of 3 of the Judge's ruling - just above "Findings of Fact " (not findings of hearsay) it clearly says "testimony of law enforcement".

I don't believe I indicated anywhere that the family got inside info from LE - you're kind of assuming something by saying so
 
I've been lurking and reading for a couple of days. There are some great discussions on here. Many of which are (of course) speculation. because LE has not shared very many facts.

I have seen speculation that someone named Heather may have been involved with BC in an extramarital capacity.

Looking through the threads, I came across 2 videos

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3213403/

:59 second mark - Heather Benicek

"shock, huge shock" - watch her "micro expressions".


Video Titled - Nancy Cooper's death ruled homicide

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...cal&id=6267674

4:10 second mark - Heather Benicek

"makes you feel sad" - while shaking her head and smiling

Now, this person may be nervous or strange or whatever, but her body language and expressions really don't match the words coming out of her mouth. I usually interpret that to mean someone is being misleading.

Does anyone know this person? Locals?
 
Star12 said:
I have sat in 8-B too many hours. And neither can I imagine that scenario. But as for it being open, the notoriety of the case makes me wonder.

Or, the hearing could be held in chambers.
Click to expand...

I've been in 8B too many times myself. And a judge WILL clear the courtroom depending on the case.
 
Lack of an arrest is not indicative of lack of evidence. This case will be brought before a grand jury. It's standard operating procedure for capital cases. We may not see an arrest until BC is indicted by a grand jury. It could take 6 months or longer.
 
I've been wondering about the comments about Nancy being found partially clothed. Rather than Brad trying to make it appear to be a sexual attack, I wonder if he attempted to clothe her in her running clothes and it was too difficult, so he stopped

OR

Was she found in running shorts and a sports bra, and maybe that appeared to be "partially clothed".
 
Hi I am new in the forum but I have been reading this forum for a while now. I want to bring up I know the place where NC was found very well because I own a lot there. The person who placed her there was not anyone, he or she (most likely him) knew of this place had low traffic because no lot has been put for sale there yet.

I have two girls of the same age as Bella and Katie and I truly feel for those girls and for NC not being able to see them grow. This is truly devastating!
 
raisincharlie said:
Page 1 of 3 of the Judge's ruling - just above "Findings of Fact " (not findings of hearsay) it clearly says "testimony of law enforcement".
Click to expand...

OK, now I see it, but though I missed it before, I'm sure that LE really only verified things in the public record; Brad and his house are under investigation and he does not have access to it. Anything else wouldn't really be admissible, if the cop even tried because no indictment had been served, nothing had been proven and though they may have spoke to character, I'm not seeing anything else that would apply or about which the officer would have knowledge.

Most likely, the officer serving as the family's security simply agreed that a crime had been committed, the house had been seized and that Brad was among those being investigated. They probably also accepted the judge's decree that LE would aid with the transfer of the children and provide their passports.

As for my comment concerning "inside information", it was rooted in this part of your initial post; "Are you saying LE misled the Judge as well as the Grandparents?"

Perhaps a lawyer or someone equally knowledgable will weigh-in here, but I'm sure that at that stage of the game, law enforcement would be very limited in what they could say in a civil matter, as it regards an ongoing investigation.

PS) I apologize for missing that one sentence in an introductory paragraph, several days ago.
 
excelguy said:
I've been lurking and reading for a couple of days. There are some great discussions on here. Many of which are (of course) speculation. because LE has not shared very many facts.

I have seen speculation that someone named Heather may have been involved with BC in an extramarital capacity.

Looking through the threads, I came across 2 videos

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3213403/

:59 second mark - Heather Benicek

"shock, huge shock" - watch her "micro expressions".


Video Titled - Nancy Cooper's death ruled homicide

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...cal&id=6267674

4:10 second mark - Heather Benicek

"makes you feel sad" - while shaking her head and smiling

Now, this person may be nervous or strange or whatever, but her body language and expressions really don't match the words coming out of her mouth. I usually interpret that to mean someone is being misleading.

Does anyone know this person? Locals?
Click to expand...

I do not know this person but she does have curious mannerisms. Isn't her name one of the people mentioned for affairs? I live close and I heard that BC has had 3 different affairs in Lochmere.
 
Sailing gal said:
Hi I am new in the forum but I have been reading this forum for a while now. I want to bring up I know the place where NC was found very well because I own a lot there. The person who placed her there was not anyone, he or she (most likely him) knew of this place had low traffic because no lot has been put for sale there yet.

I have two girls of the same age as Bella and Katie and I truly feel for those girls and for NC not being able to see them grow. This is truly devastating!
Click to expand...

Welcome Sailing Gal

Curious about the foot traffic through the area were Nancy was found. From reports it was a gentleman walking a dog who found Nancy three days after she went missing and during one of the WRAL videos there was a gentleman running through the area in the background. I take it from your comments that vehicular traffic is most likely limited due to the undeveloped nature of the area - is that correct ? Would most of the traffic be construction related ?

Thanks and welcome aboard.
 
Sandybeaches said:
Calls...the first one by JA and then and then the 2nd made by the man who was walking his dog and found Nancy's body.

The N&O also has them up as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks ! Someone was kind enough to post the link. Got it now !
 
Way off-topic, but my wife likes to make fun of how everyone in Cary lives in a subdivision and not a town.
After listening to the call about the body, I can see how it might cause confusion.

ETA (Back on-topic): I think Jessica's call completely rules her out as a suspect and it also implies that she wouldn't have called the house on Friday night, prior to calling Nancy at the party, as has been theorized in another subforum.
 
I can't get the link to play the calls. Can someone give me a brief rundown?

Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 83 more.
Total: 1,628 (members: 84, guests: 1,544)

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
1,544
Total visitors
1,628
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,789
Messages
18,211,201
Members
233,964
Latest member
tammyb1025
Back
Top