Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #9

[carolinalady]

And if he is using the same attorney he sought for the divorce as he is using for defense, I would say he must remove those said attorneys also.
Has anyone established that?

SNIP

Why would he have to remove his attorney?

 

[christine2448]

Not only that, she was going to receive 8 years of alimony, providing she wasn't remarried.

He wanted joint custody where he could see the kids on weekends and a vacation in the summer. But she was going to have to move back to Canada because she didn't have a work permit in the U.S. IMHO, that's the reason he took the kids passports away. Because if she moved to Canada, he was responsible to pay for the kids transportation back and forth, PLUS he had to pay for Nancy to accompany them on their flight.

Bet the stuck in his craw!

They also had a loan on his 401K. The house proceeds were to pay that off, and she was going to get the 401K, IIRC.

Oh, and he had to pay off the newer car that Nancy was driving, (his was paid for) and she got to keep it!

Oh, and he had to keep his life insurance payable to Nancy and keep it up to date in premium payments.

Oh, and he had to pay for health insurance for the kids until they were 18.

Oh,........and all of the kids extra-curricular activities, orthodontist, dentist, extra dr bills...............BRAD would have been responsible for them ALL!!

Can you spell MOTIVE for MURDER!!!!!!!!

JMHO
fran

And the difference now is?? He has to do this all alone, w/no help. (if he get's custody)
The separation agreement was not signed or filed IIRC They were in counseling to work it out. (I personally think she was on her way out the door home...just stating the facts)

 

[christine2448]

I'm just reading it now. Items #17 & 85 sure covers his rear end for not reporting Nancy missing. Items #27 & 40 seems to be an attempt to cover up for him being out shopping in the early hours of Saturday morning. Items #58-65 I see as an attempt to explain away his "indiscretion" (alleged affair) to put himself in a better light and take away motive for killing Nancy. Items #71-82 he's trying to shift the blame for their debt on Nancy's expensive tastes and uncontrolled spending. Items #165-170 his explanation of what happened the night before Nancy's disappearance (he, the loving father took the kids home while Nancy stayed at the BBQ) and admission he went out shopping that morning but denies he bought bleach and Nancy left at 7am. And for the rest, it seems he's one very patient person who doesn't mind forfeiting his scheduled tennis game because Nancy failed to show up yet he doesn't seem disturbed at all. What a guy!!

Also, we were sure that she went to this bbq/party the night before alone weren't we. We were wrong. The whole family went. (trying to catch up...there is like 8 pages since I went to bed!)

 

[christine2448]

WOW...just finished reading Jessica's affidavit.

How'd I miss that?? Link? TIA :crazy:

 

[RoughlyCollie]

Do the parties have to agree to a continuance in NC? They don't where I live.

Here, the parties can agree and the judge can go along with it, or the judge can impose it without anyone's agreement.

Respectfully,
RC

(Though, I still expect a continuance, unless Brad won't agree)

 

[Onescout]

SNIP

Why would he have to remove his attorney?

Either remove or FULL disclosure because of all the previous information discussed.
His attorneys wanted Stubbs removed from the custody actions because of previous contact with Nancy.
His attorneys would have to be more than forthcoming on any information, to pull an atttorney/client privilige would be too conflicting.

Or I could be way off here.

 

[christine2448]

Common sense tells you why he was at that store.

To buy laundry detergent I thought? I am sure his purchase can be proven. He said he bought laundry detergent, do you think that was what he used to clean up the murder scene?

 

[fran]

And the difference now is?? He has to do this all alone, w/no help. (if he get's custody)
The separation agreement was not signed or filed IIRC They were in counseling to work it out. (I personally think she was on her way out the door home...just stating the facts)

christine:

Brad wants everyone to believe they were trying to work it out. But after you read all the friends affidavits, you'll see that the divorce was on hold ONLY because Nancy's green card application was through Brad's employer, Cisco Systems. She was under the impression, and it may have been true, that the divorce proceeding, could jeopradize her ability to get legal residancy in the U.S.

While married, Nancy was allowed to reside in the U.S., only as Brad's wife. Her immigration status was tied to Brad and his employer.

Nancy was TRAPPED.

JMHO
fran

PS........anyone wanting to know the REAL deal, reading the affidavits will be able to see what was going on behind those closed doors.....imo, fran

 

[carolinalady]

Either remove or FULL disclosure because of all the previous information discussed.
His attorneys wanted Stubbs removed from the custody actions because of previous contact with Nancy.
His attorneys would have to be more than forthcoming on any information, to pull an atttorney/client privilige would be too conflicting.

Or I could be way off here.

But, the difference now is that his attorney is still representing him. His argument is that her attorney is now working for her family in a way that conflicts w/ NC's original agreement.

Maybe I'm interpreting the filings incorrectly.

 

[carolinalady]

christine:

Brad wants everyone to believe they were trying to work it out. But after you read all the friends affidavits, you'll see that the divorce was on hold ONLY because Nancy's green card application was through Brad's employer, Cisco Systems. She was under the impression, and it may have been true, that the divorce proceeding, could jeopradize her ability to get legal residancy in the U.S.

While married, Nancy was allowed to reside in the U.S., only as Brad's wife. Her immigration status was tied to Brad and his employer.

Nancy was TRAPPED.

JMHO
fran

PS........anyone wanting to know the REAL deal, reading the affidavits will be able to see what was going on behind those closed doors.....imo, fran

The only problem I have with this is that the agreement was that she was going to return to Canada to live. So, why would the greencard status matter? Wouldn't she just have a passport to travel for the visits?

 

[christine2448]

BRAD'S STATEMENT says, I started to get ready for the girls to get up and noticed we were out of laundry detergent and could not do laundry, so Nancy asked me to go back out and get some laundry detergent at around 6:30 A.M.

Did Brad do laundry or not? He says yes, friends so no.
How do you just happen to notice no laundry detergent?

Why would Nancy care about not having detergent when she had plans to paint, and not home doing laundry this particular Saturday?

Why would Brad care if there was detergent or not when he wasn't spending the day doing laundry, but playing tennis?

MY POINT
No reason to make a special trip to the store for detergent when it was not a high priority item needed on this particular day!

There is no way we can know if these people needed laundry detergent or not. There is so much reasonable speculation we can do. We do not know these peoples daily routines...it could have been normal to do grocery runs early am for them. It is for many. I am an early bird. I love being in Walmart at 5-6 am...best time to shop! I have laundry going all the time and am pissed when I am out of detergent. I always want to be able to throw in a load.

 

[Onescout]

But, the difference now is that his attorney is still representing him. His argument is that her attorney is now working for her family in a way that conflicts w/ NC's original agreement.

Maybe I'm interpreting the filings incorrectly.

No you are right, Stubbs was part of Nancy's filing and the ex parte was the family.
I do get that .
It just seems to me that they have more ammo for attorney/client privilige and can shut down alot of testimony if need be.

 

[fran]

My husband never does laundry, cooking, housework, or yard work, and he hasn't in the 2 decades we've been married.

If we were divorced, he'd need a washer and dryer if he wanted clean clothes. Sure, laundromats are available, but I can guarantee that my husband would not darken the doorway of one, no matter what. He'd buy more clothing before he did that.

In fact, he'd either have to learn to operate something besides the microwave, or he'd need a full-time caretaker.

Edited to add: If I were planning to move to Canada with my kids, I would not waste the money it would cost to ship a used washer and dryer there from NC.

Respectfully,
RC

I agree about her reasoning for leaving the washer and dryer behind. Beside the fact that IF she were able to remain in the U.S., she may have had to rent an apartment, which usually does NOT have washer/dryer hook-ups, but a laundry room.

Also, I do NOT think Brad would have used the washer/dryer anyway. He only took them, because it was one more POSSESSION he could keep. He most likely would have taken his laundry to a laundry that would do it FOR HIM. We already know from the affidavits, that he would get ANGRY if his wash wasn't done. There's no reason to think he'd begin doing his own wash and dry now or after a divorce.

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

The only problem I have with this is that the agreement was that she was going to return to Canada to live. So, why would the greencard status matter? Wouldn't she just have a passport to travel for the visits?

No, I believe at first she was going to remain in the U.S. and he would have regular visitation.

But then he told her she could take the children back to Canada. As a matter of fact, he insisted, IIRC. They even had a date set. He told her she could take them and he didn't care if he ever saw them again.

But, just before she was due to leave, he STOPPED her. I believe that's when he took the children's passports, and the entire divorce was put on hold. That's when Nancy told friends she was waiting for her green card status to come through before completing the divorce.

I believe that's in the information from Jessica's husband's affidavit. (Brett?)

JMHO
fran

 

[christine2448]

One being that Nancy was a big spender, wanted expensive jewelry etc...yet any photo I see of her, she barely has any jewelry on and she wears very casual clothes..

good point

He also makes the claim that she called him while he was out on the morning in question to get juice...anyone who has been in a hostile end of the marriage environment doesn't have those "Hey hon can you get some juice?" kind of phone calls. This was merely to set up alibi.

Too much speculation IMO, she very well could have called him and asked for juice. They were close to the store, seemed like a normal thing to run and grab stuff.

He is certainly not spending one second on finding the killer of his children's mother, is he?
Has there been one mention from his counsel that they are offering a reward or persuing a private investigation? I truly don't recall such actions

Yep, this has my hinkey meter dial leaning to the right.

BTW..for you and all newbies.

 

[caryresident]

I think it is interesting that Brad doesn't have anyone saying he is superdad in any of the affidavits.

I read somewhere the Heather M is saying she hasn't been with Brad in 4 years and was upset about being accused of having an affair with him now. Is there another woman other than Heather M or is she just saying that?

Here's the quote from a news article:
Nancy Cooper's friends also allege in motions that Brad Cooper had at least four extramarital affairs. They named Heather Metour as one of the women and said she was Nancy Cooper’s best friend at the time of the affair.

“She’s upset any of this that occurred four years ago is being brought up at all. It's got nothing to do with the custody case,” Metour’s lawyer John McNeil said.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3256442/

 

[christine2448]

I think he may be spending more time perusing crime forums to make sure he has answers to cover all the bases...:crazy:

LMAO! I thought exactly that when reading the prior posts about no reward and the fact that Brad isn't showing interest in finding his wifes killer...I bet we will see a reward and something rather quickly since now it is mentioned here. (Tricia, owner of WS, invited him and attorney to post here with us recently in a radio interview )

 

[RoughlyCollie]

I wonder if NC was a big spender. How much does it cost to compete in Ironman competitions? IIRC, someone here posted that it was expensive. Maybe NC was mad about all that money being spent on Brad and he told her to buy the purse to mollify her. Would she have spent that much money on something without Brad's agreement, especially since it seems that he controlled the finances? Or maybe she got mad at him for spending so much money on himself and went out and bought herself something expensive when she did have access to the credit cards.

If BC did control the money, that doesn't mean he handled it in a responsible manner. For all we know, he spent money like water on himself without consulting NC.

He who has the money, has the power (unless he is willing to share it).

Also, just because NC had some expensive things, doesn't mean she wanted them. My DH looked like a hero one year when he gave me an expensive, luxury vehicle, one that I did not want or need, for Mother's Day. We could not afford it, but I was not consulted. DH just showed up with it the day before Mother's Day. Meanwhile, we did without things we *needed* in order to make the payments on it. There is nothing like driving a brand new luxury vehicle to Salvation Army to buy clothing for the kids.

Things are not always as they appear. In my case with the vehicle, everyone thought DH was a wonderful, loving husband and many people told me they envied me. They had no idea what was really going on behind the scenes.

RC

 

[d99gr81]

I find it INTERESTING that Brad's affidavit bothers to mention the detergent purchase. You realize that means that he indeed was out EARLY buying detergent so that little factoid appears to be true.

And I don't care how meticulous someone is, there is no freaking way a husband is going to run out to the store just to get some laundry detergent at 6am! A husband who was not known to be around much, let alone one to do his own or the children's laundry.

NO WAY.

In fact, I would challenge the Harris Teeter store to search their databases from the last 2 years and find one other instance of someone buying just laundry detergent and/or bleach at 6am. I bet Brad is the only husband to do so. And what a COINKY DINK that HIS wife just happened to be murdered that same day.

Common sense tells you why he was at that store.

OK being that I went through a bad divorce and towards the end I try to go above and beyond to do things my ex complained about. Adams clearly states he didn't ever do laundry. I can easily see him trying to do laundry now because he said he wanted to stay married to her. So really people I know because I have been there. Even though my ex did the cheating I still wanted to save my marriage for my boys sake. So I went out of my way to do extra things...especially ones she complained about. He stated he was giving Mommy Day offs... Oh my do I know about that. So much of these affidavits ring a bell of some of the things I went through. I can assure you, he could easily been trying to make things right and do things he didn't normally do.

 

[christine2448]

Just as an observer from the outside, Brad's 2 statements in the affadavit bother me.
One being that Nancy was a big spender, wanted expensive jewelry etc...yet any photo I see of her, she barely has any jewelry on and she wears very casual clothes.

I agree and also he says Nancy liked to buy $8000 paintings..well in the property settlement HE gets 9 paintings and she gets 7~so HE must like them himself

Good catch. You all are catching some good stuff! My head is spinning just trying to keep up with the top cases right now. :crazy: