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

[raisincharlie]

I wonder if Kurtz & Blum was already retained by BC for the divorce. One of the affidavits mentions he had a divorce attorney. I honestly had never heard of them prior to this case. As mentioned previously, the big criminal cases usually have one of the Smiths (Wade/Roger), Joe Cheshire, or David Rudolph associated with it.

I suspect he already had Kurtz & Blum - Nancy had Tharrington & Smith - Alice Stubbs

 

[Tigerlily]

Hello,
I have not posted in several days but I am still so interested in this case b/c of my friend who's good friends with Nancy and because I live 2 hrs from Cary.

Just wanted to comment that on my friend's Facebook page, I noticed a post by another friend of Nancy's (I don't know her personally), a girl who has been quoted early on in the case as one of Nancy's close friends, had posted to my friend in April that Nancy was moving back to Canada and their house was going to go for sale soon. So this plan was known by close friends as early as April and def. explains why Brad took the passports because he knew she was leaving him and taking the kids with her.

Also, I am still reading through all the threads and trying to catch up but wanted to comment on several posters who were trying to figure out if Brad's alleged mistress, who may or may not be named Heather, lived in Cary. Don't forget that Cary is a suburb of Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, what is known as the Triangle in NC. This area is all within 30mins or so of each other, meaning he could've easily been seeing someone from a neighboring town as they all are very close and it's very common for folks that live in one of the 3 cities or suburbs to drive to a neighboring city for shopping, restaurants, entertainment, etc. So when searching for this Heather person, don't forget to search these 3 areas as well as the smaller surrounding communities.

 

[panthera]

Holy CARP!!! Have y'all read this????

Any comments??? Anyone believe any of it???

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/cooper_affidavit.pdf

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!!

 

[raisincharlie]

Hello,
I have not posted in several days but I am still so interested in this case b/c of my friend who's good friends with Nancy and because I live 2 hrs from Cary.

Just wanted to comment that on my friend's Facebook page, I noticed a post by another friend of Nancy's (I don't know her personally), a girl who has been quoted early on in the case as one of Nancy's close friends, had posted to my friend in April that Nancy was moving back to Canada and their house was going to go for sale soon. So this plan was known by close friends as early as April and def. explains why Brad took the passports because he knew she was leaving him and taking the kids with her.

Also, I am still reading through all the threads and trying to catch up but wanted to comment on several posters who were trying to figure out if Brad's alleged mistress, who may or may not be named Heather, lived in Cary. Don't forget that Cary is a suburb of Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, what is known as the Triangle in NC. This area is all within 30mins or so of each other, meaning he could've easily been seeing someone from a neighboring town as they all are very close and it's very common for folks that live in one of the 3 cities or suburbs to drive to a neighboring city for shopping, restaurants, entertainment, etc. So when searching for this Heather person, don't forget to search these 3 areas as well as the smaller surrounding communities.

Tigerlily,

The woman in question has been positively identified. The N & O failed to redact her name prior to displaying today's affidavits. They have corrected this but not before it was noted by several here. So her name is known.

 

[carolinalady]

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

Oh yes, I'm sure it did stick in his craw. Knowing a friend going through a divorce, I would think this is a first draft where you ask for everything. And then, her soon to be ex would concede some points and negotiate on others. Once a final agreement is hammered out, then it would be signed. The Coopers agreement was still unsigned as of Nancy's death. Though, from reading BC's affidavit, it made it sound like he'd conceded to it all. Not sure what to think of it all.

Also, I think it was Jessica's affidavit that states that BC had become "more involved" in the past 2 months. Sounds kind of like the timing of the separation email. Maybe he realized then exactly how much he was likely to lose (and from her friends accounts it would certainly seem like he would be fixated on the $ amount he'd lose, not on losing the children and/or Nancy).

 

[panthera]

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



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

JMHO
fran

Yes, I sure can!!

 

[Topsail Girl]

Her name is also still public on several affidavits as well.

 

[fran]

Fran I don't believe I've ever expressed to you just how much I enjoy your posts!!! Final three chapters - I have the perfect book for him to read - he is the male version of Anne Miller Kontz. The cases are in no way similar except for the Cary addy. It's just that this guy is a male version of her. He shoudl read the entire book!! She still to this day thinks she's smarter than the cops. She still sits in jail trying to figure out where she went wrong and I beleive she'll never admit to herself that she is at fault.

Ahhh, tks Topsail Girl

I dunno. For a guy with an MBA, you'd think Brad would be a little more street smart. Know how to complete the whole book before taking a test, sorta thing. He musta' been one of those people that cut corners and cheated on tests.......maybe?

JMHO
fran

 

[Topsail Girl]

Panthera,

He does seem to have all the answers. However I do think that receipts, witnesses, vidoe tapes and Jessica Adam will be the end of his little innocent act.

 

[raisincharlie]

Ahhh, tks Topsail Girl

I dunno. For a guy with an MBA, you'd think Brad would be a little more street smart. Know how to complete the whole book before taking a test, sorta thing. He musta' been one of those people that cut corners and cheated on tests.......maybe?

JMHO
fran

Some of the friends seem convinced he was definitely the type and had the ability to monitor phone calls...and he had access to such system capabilities through his work. Oops - there goes that job down the drain if proven true...

 

[Topsail Girl]

Ahhh, tks Topsail Girl

I dunno. For a guy with an MBA, you'd think Brad would be a little more street smart. Know how to complete the whole book before taking a test, sorta thing. He musta' been one of those people that cut corners and cheated on tests.......maybe?

JMHO
fran

Clift notes???? that'll do you in eventually.

 

[fran]

Tigerlily,

The woman in question has been positively identified. The N & O failed to redact her name prior to displaying today's affidavits. They have corrected this but not before it was noted by several here. So her name is known.

PLUS, Jessica identified her in her statement as well.

FULL THREE WORD NAME

She's outted!:boohoo:

JMHO
fran

 

[raisincharlie]

PLUS, Jessica identified her in her statement as well.

FULL THREE WORD NAME

She's outted!:boohoo:

JMHO
fran

She is not having a good day :crazy:

 

[fran]

Oh yes, I'm sure it did stick in his craw. Knowing a friend going through a divorce, I would think this is a first draft where you ask for everything. And then, her soon to be ex would concede some points and negotiate on others. Once a final agreement is hammered out, then it would be signed. The Coopers agreement was still unsigned as of Nancy's death. Though, from reading BC's affidavit, it made it sound like he'd conceded to it all. Not sure what to think of it all.

Also, I think it was Jessica's affidavit that states that BC had become "more involved" in the past 2 months. Sounds kind of like the timing of the separation email. Maybe he realized then exactly how much he was likely to lose (and from her friends accounts it would certainly seem like he would be fixated on the $ amount he'd lose, not on losing the children and/or Nancy).

As I recall, the email settlement agreement 'Draft' that we saw, was "Draft 2"

Obviously Nancy had already had to make changes. I'm sure they weren't voluntary on her part either!

JMHO
fran

 

[Topsail Girl]

Some of the friends seem convinced he was definitely the type and had the ability to monitor phone calls...and he had access to such system capabilities through his work. Oops - there goes that job down the drain if proven true...

I can not imagine ever trying to have that much control over another person, much less one I planned to spend the rest of my life with , have children with, grow old with. I think his job is already down the drain. A while back I had a friend that worked for Cisco and he was going to school for MCP (Microsoft Certified Professional) the same time I was. I often went to Cisco to study with him. One of the most vivid things I remember was the free food and drinks. I don't know if it is still the same, but there was always fruit and soda, tea, water, cereal, snacks - all kinds of thing to eat or drink in the cantina - for free. Why would he need lunch money? Unless it was to go out to entertain possibly during his lunch time. I'm not saying 20% is too much for lunch, just that he had no need to ever pay for lunch IF Cisco is the same way it used to be. Again tells me that he's full of chit about certain things.

 

[fran]

She is not having a good day :crazy:

Play with {fire} you might get {burned}!

:boohoo:Ouch!


fran

 

[panthera]

Panthera,

He does seem to have all the answers. However I do think that receipts, witnesses, vidoe tapes and Jessica Adam will be the end of his little innocent act.

I think he's smart enough to have figured out what she'd normally do and plan the crime around it to make it look like something happened while she was out and he was passively at home with the children. What he stood to lose financially should this divorce have taken place and Nancy returned to Canada with the girls though sure gives him one huge motive to want Nancy out of the way.

 

[raisincharlie]

I can not imagine ever trying to have that much control over another person, much less one I planned to spend the rest of my life with , have children with, grow old with. I think his job is already down the drain. A while back I had a friend that worked for Cisco and he was going to school for MCP (Microsoft Certified Professional) the same time I was. I often went to Cisco to study with him. One of the most vivid things I remember was the free food and drinks. I don't know if it is still the same, but there was always fruit and soda, tea, water, cereal, snacks - all kinds of thing to eat or drink in the cantina - for free. Why would he need lunch money? Unless it was to go out to entertain possibly during his lunch time. I'm not saying 20% is too much for lunch, just that he had no need to ever pay for lunch IF Cisco is the same way it used to be. Again tells me that he's full of chit about certain things.

Holy cow - good deal if it is still that way. I'm wondering how much homework his lawyer actually did - doesn't seem like much.

 

[fran]

I can not imagine ever trying to have that much control over another person, much less one I planned to spend the rest of my life with , have children with, grow old with. I think his job is already down the drain. A while back I had a friend that worked for Cisco and he was going to school for MCP (Microsoft Certified Professional) the same time I was. I often went to Cisco to study with him. One of the most vivid things I remember was the free food and drinks. I don't know if it is still the same, but there was always fruit and soda, tea, water, cereal, snacks - all kinds of thing to eat or drink in the cantina - for free. Why would he need lunch money? Unless it was to go out to entertain possibly during his lunch time. I'm not saying 20% is too much for lunch, just that he had no need to ever pay for lunch IF Cisco is the same way it used to be. Again tells me that he's full of chit about certain things.

OhMyGosh!

Good catch!

See, it pays to be familiar with places being discussed AND it pays to have the NOT suspect or POI talking publicly. Although in media broadcasts the subject can often times make a slip of the tongue because they're caught off guard by specific question.

LOL, but for this gaffoo........there is NO excuse for such an error. I mean they probably spent several hours composing this affidavit or whatever it is. He proofread in several times, I'm sure. You either pay for your lunch or a 'free lunch' is provided.

LOL, tomorrow will probably see some statement where he corrects it. Well he went out to lunch at least once a month. The rest of the money he spent on Nancy and the kids, getting them anything their little heart desired. :furious:

Yeah, right
fran

 

[sues]

I can not imagine ever trying to have that much control over another person, much less one I planned to spend the rest of my life with , have children with, grow old with. I think his job is already down the drain. A while back I had a friend that worked for Cisco and he was going to school for MCP (Microsoft Certified Professional) the same time I was. I often went to Cisco to study with him. One of the most vivid things I remember was the free food and drinks. I don't know if it is still the same, but there was always fruit and soda, tea, water, cereal, snacks - all kinds of thing to eat or drink in the cantina - for free. Why would he need lunch money? Unless it was to go out to entertain possibly during his lunch time. I'm not saying 20% is too much for lunch, just that he had no need to ever pay for lunch IF Cisco is the same way it used to be. Again tells me that he's full of chit about certain things.

OK, I'm TOTALLY not defending BC against the murder charges. But it isn't hard to believe that it is possible that NC had a spending problem and spent more than they had. There is no reason at this point to think all the over-spend was due to BC and not NC. I know lots of people who do not control their spending well (nice people, even). If Brad was giving Nancy 80% of the extra money and keeping 20% for himself, that isn't so wrong if she was spending out of control. Not saying she was, just that it's possible. (And of course, I'm not saying she deserved to be abused or anything for that.)

In any case, it is clear that as a couple, they were most definitely spending above their means.