Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #27

[raisincharlie]

RC-Plus when living in a hostile situation in the same house while wife pursuing divorce, it's kind of preposterous that they'd never argue in front of the children. The couple that could pull that off would be quite remarkable, in my opinion. Maybe in the affidavit he got carried away with trying to make himself look good and really shouldn't have made those blanket statements. Seems unrealistic.

And when you think about it, there are plenty of lousy husbands and lousy fathers who aren't murderers. Maybe I'm being overly sympathetic toward him and he doesn't deserve the sympathy!

Honestly - I think both of them knew how to push buttons and did so when they felt the need to do so. I agree, it is unrealistic which is all the more reason, he's lying somewhere - affidavit or deposition - take your choice.


:truce: having said the above...:crazy:

 

[Anderson]

Piedmont - I would agree about the parking lot argument being forgotten if the couple had lots of arguments, that would be sensible if one thinks about it. The problem I see for Brad is in his affidavit he clearly states that he and Nancy only had one "heated" argument and that was in February and at home. He also states the neighbors came over about taking the kids away from the argument for a while and that both he and Nancy were embarassed. He also states they did not argue infront of the children in the same affidavit. So I think you can see why people are wondering why he said "no" to the parking lot argument. Although I tend to agree with you, that it is likely he forgot about it, because it was more common than not.

Lines 155 - 157 http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2008/7/23/bradley%20cooper.pdf

Yes, I agree that it would be possible to forget this event. Regardless, it draws our attention to an inconsistency in his affidavit and demonstrates that he isn't always correct in his account.

Someone mentioned that this event may suggest premeditation. I know that the witness stated that BC told Nancy to give the girls to him or something along those lines. I really don't think that the parking lot event would suggest or prove premeditation. Does anyone think that is the case?

 

[SleuthSayer]

I completely disagree. I can't see him losing the custody battle. He is their father. He has rights to his kids.

He was their father in July when the police took the children from him. At that time, a judge decided that he had no right to his kids. Why does he have any reason to believe now that he has any right to have his kids?

The judge has said that in deciding whether he gets his children back, she is going to decide for herself whether or not he killed his wife. What is the legal standard for such a decision? Is it: Beyond a reasonable doubt? More likely than not? Seems likely? A "gut feel"? A hunch?

Barring someone else being charged and convicted of the crime before the custody hearing, there is a 0% chance that the judge is going to come out and say that she has decided that he didn't do it. So, her conclusion is going to be that either he might have done it or that he definitely did it. In either case, she isn't going to let him have his children back.

 

[raisincharlie]

Yes, I agree that it would be possible to forget this event. Regardless, it draws our attention to an inconsistency in his affidavit and demonstrates that he isn't always correct in his account.

Someone mentioned that this event may suggest premeditation. I know that the witness stated that BC told Nancy to give the girls to him or something along those lines. I really don't think that the parking lot event would suggest or prove premeditation. Does anyone think that is the case?

I don't think it suggests premeditation - only an escalation of anger.

 

[reddress58]

Gimme a break! Now you are ascribing a heated argument in a parking lot to premeditation. You are now saying that he was planning her murder since May 24 and argued like that knowing she would be dead in July. He wasn't thinking about anything other than the argument at the moment. He either didn't care who was listening or didn't know if anybody was listening. He didn't "figure" anything.

I will give you a break...because you misunderstood me. When he answered the question while being disposed he assumed he was the only one who knew about the argument. He wasn't thinking that while he was actually having the argument. No, I do not think Nancy's murder was pre-meditated and I'm not suggesting it in my statement. Sorry to mislead you.

 

[Anderson]

I don't think it suggests premeditation - only an escalation of anger.

Thanks! :crazy:

 

[Anderson]

I will give you a break...because you misunderstood me. When he answered the question while being disposed he assumed he was the only one who knew about the argument. He wasn't thinking that while he was actually having the argument. No, I do not think Nancy's murder was pre-meditated and I'm not suggesting it in my statement. Sorry to mislead you.

Thanks for clarifying that Reddress!

 

[jilly]

Happy Thanksgiving Jess ( and Ms. Jilly)

Thank you RC!:blowkiss:

 

[piedmont]

Yes, I agree that it would be possible to forget this event. Regardless, it draws our attention to an inconsistency in his affidavit and demonstrates that he isn't always correct in his account.

Someone mentioned that this event may suggest premeditation. I know that the witness stated that BC told Nancy to give the girls to him or something along those lines. I really don't think that the parking lot event would suggest or prove premeditation. Does anyone think that is the case?

I think, as Brad stated at some point, that he and NC had both said awful things to each other. Having heated arguments, public or private, usually does not lead to murder. I'd hate to have to watch a video of everything I've ever said to my husband or children. I wouldn't look too angelic for parts of it.

As for BC not always being correct in his account-agreed. I think doing all this recounting perfectly is a very high standard. We are talking about human beings here.

 

[reddress58]

I think, as Brad stated at some point, that he and NC had both said awful things to each other. Having heated arguments, public or private, usually does not lead to murder. I'd hate to have to watch a video of everything I've ever said to my husband or children. I wouldn't look too angelic for parts of it.

As for BC not always being correct in his account-agreed. I think doing all this recounting perfectly is a very high standard. We are talking about human beings here.

I agree with you to a point. But the parking lot question was asked more than once, giving him time to think and/or retract his "no" answer. He was quite adamant that it never happened. To me, if he wasn't sure he could have said "I don't recall that ever happening". But he was very definitive with his answer.

 

[ncsu95]

The fact that TS has obtained an affidavit from Shirley Hull, who states she witnessed this, and from Gary Beard who could describe how the garage appeared 4 days before Nancy went missing, tells me that Ms. Stubbs and her staff have been extremely thorough. Uh oh.

I believe BC about the garage more than Gary Beard. It wouldn't make sense for it not to have been cleaned prior to July 8th. Are people suggesting he cleaned it after killing her? That wouldn't make much sense given the timeline of events.

 

[ncsu95]

Yeah, I bet he never thought anybody was listening to them in that parking lot. He figured the only witnesses were either too young to tell.....or were....deceased.

Or maybe he didn't remember arguing in the parking lot. They were going through the early stages of a divorce. He admitted that they argued frequently.

 

[Anderson]

I believe BC about the garage more than Gary Beard. It wouldn't make sense for it not to have been cleaned prior to July 8th. Are people suggesting he cleaned it after killing her? That wouldn't make much sense given the timeline of events.

What possible incentive would Gary Beard have to make up information?

 

[ncsu95]

Piedmont - I would agree about the parking lot argument being forgotten if the couple had lots of arguments, that would be sensible if one thinks about it. The problem I see for Brad is in his affidavit he clearly states that he and Nancy only had one "heated" argument and that was in February and at home. He also states the neighbors came over about taking the kids away from the argument for a while and that both he and Nancy were embarassed. He also states they did not argue infront of the children in the same affidavit. So I think you can see why people are wondering why he said "no" to the parking lot argument. Although I tend to agree with you, that it is likely he forgot about it, because it was more common than not.

Lines 155 - 157 http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2008/7/23/bradley%20cooper.pdf

Maybe he has a different definition of heated. Maybe the one in Feb was a knock-down screaming match, versus general arguing, even with a raised voice.

 

[reddress58]

I believe BC about the garage more than Gary Beard. It wouldn't make sense for it not to have been cleaned prior to July 8th. Are people suggesting he cleaned it after killing her? That wouldn't make much sense given the timeline of events.

I think LE is trying to establish that the murder was pre-meditated showing that Brad cleaned the garage right before she was murdered so that his car could be inside. (making it easier to put her body in his car) If Brad is telling the truth about the garage, then either one of their cars could be in there without any pre-planning since the garage already had plenty of room.

 

[Anderson]

Or maybe he didn't remember arguing in the parking lot. They were going through the early stages of a divorce. He admitted that they argued frequently.

I believe that many here acknowledge (see posts above) that he may not have remembered this event. However, since that contradicts other information in his affidavit that suggests that his account of events is not always correct. This has implications for how much we can trust Brad on his version of events. I believe that would be how the lawyers may interpret this information. Perhaps there are other implications that I am not aware of.

 

[reddress58]

Or maybe he didn't remember arguing in the parking lot. They were going through the early stages of a divorce. He admitted that they argued frequently.

Have you listened to the line of questioning regarding the parking lot argument? I am curious if your opinion would be the same after listening. If you have, then we just disagree on that point.

 

[ncsu95]

He was their father in July when the police took the children from him. At that time, a judge decided that he had no right to his kids. Why does he have any reason to believe now that he has any right to have his kids?

The judge has said that in deciding whether he gets his children back, she is going to decide for herself whether or not he killed his wife. What is the legal standard for such a decision? Is it: Beyond a reasonable doubt? More likely than not? Seems likely? A "gut feel"? A hunch?

Barring someone else being charged and convicted of the crime before the custody hearing, there is a 0% chance that the judge is going to come out and say that she has decided that he didn't do it. So, her conclusion is going to be that either he might have done it or that he definitely did it. In either case, she isn't going to let him have his children back.

The July thing was an emergency order at a time when the Murder investigation was just beginning. Things were chaotic. She had nothing to go on back then other than what the Rentz family said. He didn't have the opportunity to defend himself and the order was given without his representation. That is completely different.

Where did the judge say she would decide if he committed the murder or not? She said she would take the investigation into account from what I remember, I could be wrong. I'll say this, I would have extreme issue with a custody judge making a determination of someones guilt or innocence in a murder case that is still under investigation. That would contaminate any future criminal trial. She can make determination of his character, but not of his guilt or innocence.

 

[Anderson]

Maybe he has a different definition of heated. Maybe the one in Feb was a knock-down screaming match, versus general arguing, even with a raised voice.

In the affidavit Brad recounts only one similiar event and that happened at their house. He states very clearly that they did not argue in front of the children, except for the time that the neighbor asked if they needed help (he clearly knew that there was a witness).

Apparently the children were in tears during the parking lot event and I believe that SH stated that he used obscenities. Surely, even if BC doesn't consider the parking lot argument to be "heated", I believe that it is likely many will.

JMO

 

[ncsu95]

What possible incentive would Gary Beard have to make up information?

I believe he was simply mistaken. Or, it's possible that a few things were in the center of the garage. But again, when are you (or others) suggesting that he cleaned the garage? I doubt he did it in the middle of the night on the 11th/12th. That would cause too much attention. I doubt he did it on the morning of the 12th. He didn't have time to do this without being noticed. So when did he do it? It had to be before then...so it makes sense that it had to be before the 8th since BC worked on the 9th - 11th.