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

[Maja]

It may even be she has been following the case like we have been and read all the affidavits of others and drew on the same pattern of behavior to highlight.

It seems when the friend from Calgary informed her her name was dropped (albeit BC botched her prior last name -- he really may have as he forgot his nephews name) then she decided to go on record with her story. I can only imagine how many times she has thought to herself, "that could have been me and I'm so sorry it was NC."


Fishing Trip

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3734923/

 

[jmflu]

It appears Brad left her for Nancy...

I was just wondering... where did you get the info for this from...

 

[garner_nc]

Why do you think a civil court judge would have a right to the information contained in the criminal investigation files for a civil matter? Tharrington Smith has said they will prove Brad was involved in Nancy's murder - they definitely do not have access to the investigation files. They are apparently proceeding on information they themselves have obtained since Nancy's murder.

If this is the case - sounds like the DA needs to employee the people at Tharrington Smith. So the lawyers can prove he did but the Police/DA cannot (at this time). That sounds backwards to me. I realize the burden of proof is different but you would think if they had enough information to convince a judge then that same information should be enough for a DA to request an arrest warrant.

 

[RKAB]

She cohabited with and became engaged to someone who she now claims was emotionally abusive.

And what does this prove? I married someone who was abusive. It happens.

Did she communicate her concerns of emotional abuse to a neutral party at the time?

Probably. Maybe not until after the relationship ended. Abuse can be hard to talk about.

What does she mean by mentally cruel?

If the lawyers need examples, I'm quite certain she can provide them.

It appears Brad left her for Nancy and was living in the same building.

That's not what I got out of the affidavit. I think Nancy and Brad got together after the relationship ended. I could be wrong.

To me, that would provide a rationale for her current perceptions of the nature of the relationship, as well as why she would want to break her lease to leave the building.

I left an entire city to get away from my ex-husband. She's fortunate that she only had to break a lease to get away. I see nothing suspicious about this, particularly since she had safety concerns.

Did she report his entry into her apartment?

Probably not. City police would not do anything about it unless Brad were actually inside the apartment.

How does she know that Brad remembers her name?

This is a man who has a computing science degree, an MBA, is one of very few people specialized in a VOIP role and he can't remember the name of someone he was engaged to? Please. No one is that stupid.

Bolding is mine. Like I said, I don't mind if it's scrutinized, if it's done objectively. Clearly, you feel that she is bitter or something. I just see someone being honest.

 

[raisincharlie]

If this is the case - sounds like the DA needs to employee the people at Tharrington Smith. So the lawyers can prove he did but the Police/DA cannot (at this time). That sounds backwards to me. I realize the burden of proof is different but you would think if they had enough information to convince a judge then that same information should be enough for a DA to request an arrest warrant.

As you are aware, there is a huge difference between beyond a reasonable doubt and a preponderance of the evidence (51% basically). The evidence must therefore match the standard.

The judge has already ruled Monday that what has been presented to her to date is of sufficient concern to proceed in the custody case. I would think TS has had a P.I. working this case for quite some time. No telling what they have uncovered that would allow a judge to determine if it is more likely that Brad was involved than not. They are making the claim, they will have to demonstrate it to the standard required for a civil matter. The DA has a much tougher road.

 

[tarheellvr]

Like I said, I don't mind if it's scrutinized, if it's done objectively. Clearly, you feel that she is bitter or something. I just see someone being honest.

Not only honest, but courageous as well. Yes, it does take years to speak of abuse......20+ for myself. Why? because we are abused and belittled to the point we're horrified at the thought of bringing light to our situation. Did I report my situation? No Did I "tell"? No...not even family. Did it really happen? YES Was it as bad as I eventually told? YES, probably more so.

 

[Daphne69]

If this is the case - sounds like the DA needs to employee the people at Tharrington Smith. So the lawyers can prove he did but the Police/DA cannot (at this time). That sounds backwards to me. I realize the burden of proof is different but you would think if they had enough information to convince a judge then that same information should be enough for a DA to request an arrest warrant.

It sounds like you think the judge is privy to some inside information, either from TS or the police or the DA. I don't think she is. Her comment about not ignoring the elephant in the room and deciding whether or not BC had something to do with his wife's death is valid. There wouldn't be a custody case if Nancy's family didn't think he was involved. As the judge noted, suspicions that someone is involved in a murder (no matter whether or not they're proven to be true) must be considered in regard to custody. She's just put in the unfortunate position of having to make some kind of judgement about BC's guilt or innocence before the criminal case is brought. That doesn't mean her opinion is binding criminally; it just means it's her best judgement as far as custody for the girls. Personally, I'd rather the children's rights be considered before a POTENTIAL murder suspect's, no matter who s/he is.

Also, in response to your comment about Discovery, using your logic I could demand all of the evidence from LE. Like BC I haven't been charged (when Discovery comes into effect) or named as a suspect, but I could be. I mean I do live in Cary. :crazy:

 

[boxy]

IF you have any reason to believe J's affidavit is not the truth, then I can understand these questions, but you clearly don't. I wonder if you are just reacting to a feeling that you have (just a thought). You can read the posts written by Calgary123 for first hand information.

You can also read the posts written by the person that you are responding to. Personally, I think that you should be particularly respectful to RKAB. She doesn't have to share any information with us, but she does, and bravely I might add.

I disagree with your premise, as I've already stated. All information should be scrutinized and not accepted until scrutinized.

Upon scrutiny, Ms. Ball's actions appear inconsistent. A clear thinking, emotionally stable person does not agree to cohabit with and subsequently become engaged to someone who is emotionally abusive. If someone is emotionally abusing you, you immediately restrict contact, terminate the relationship, seek counseling, and/or report the abuse to a third party. Were any of these done "throughout the relationship"?

Ms. Ball states she decided to end the relationship, but as I understand BC's statements in his deposition, he left to be with NC. Objectively determining who ended a particular relationship is often difficult, as I am sure we have all experienced in other situations.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I suppose if you simply cannot believe statements in an affy then you must disregard the content therein. If you find a witness not credible then their testimony will have no bearing on your findings. Of course the same goes for the defense affiants, not just the plaintiff affiants, including Brad himself.

 

[raisincharlie]

I disagree with your premise, as I've already stated. All information should be scrutinized and not accepted until scrutinized.

Upon scrutiny, Ms. Ball's actions appear inconsistent. A clear thinking, emotionally stable person does not agree to cohabit with and subsequently become engaged to someone who is emotionally abusive. If someone is emotionally abusing you, you immediately restrict contact, terminate the relationship, seek counseling, and/or report the abuse to a third party. Were any of these done "throughout the relationship"?

Ms. Ball states she decided to end the relationship, but as I understand BC's statements in his deposition, he left to be with NC. Objectively determining who ended a particular relationship is often difficult, as I am sure we have all experienced in other situations.

Very sad Nancy didn't do as you suggest.

 

[jmflu]

I disagree with your premise, as I've already stated. All information should be scrutinized and not accepted until scrutinized.

Upon scrutiny, Ms. Ball's actions appear inconsistent. A clear thinking, emotionally stable person does not agree to cohabit with and subsequently become engaged to someone who is emotionally abusive. If someone is emotionally abusing you, you immediately restrict contact, terminate the relationship, seek counseling, and/or report the abuse to a third party. Were any of these done "throughout the relationship"?

I think you have just insulted a lot of people who have lived through and survived an abusive relationship. Clearly you have not lived through this as you would not insult yourself. And if you have not lived through it, you are thinking about it intellectually rather than emotionally. Relationships are emotional, and it isn't always easy to do what one "should."

Objectively determining who ended a particular relationship is often difficult...

As is ending the relationship itself, which is emotional. You've just indicated that a rational, intellectual decision as to who ended a relationship can be difficult, so clearly, you must understand how an emotional determination to end one might be!

 

[boxy]

I suppose if you simply cannot believe statements in an affy then you must disregard the content therein. If you find a witness not credible then their testimony will have no bearing on your findings. Of course the same goes for the defense affiants, not just the plaintiff affiants, including Brad himself.

Most definitely! Lots to ask to be verified from the defense as well.

 

[raisincharlie]

DA Motion to Quash K & B subpeona's for investigation files.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/14/3735487/20081014134536351.pdf



Interesting and some things are confirmed. No cooperation from 15 July.

 

[boxy]

Clearly, you feel that she is bitter or something. I just see someone being honest.

I make no such subjective assessment of her or her motives. Human memory is a funny thing though.

BC also forgot the name of his only nephew. Accomplished people do not necessarily have a good memory for all things. This might be more obvious among those in the geeky sciences.

 

[ncmomof2boys]

Ms. Ball states she decided to end the relationship, but as I understand BC's statements in his deposition, he left to be with NC. Objectively determining who ended a particular relationship is often difficult, as I am sure we have all experienced in other situations.

I don't remember BC saying this in the deposition. I clearly remember him saying that NC asked him out 3 times before he actually went out with her. Can you point me to which clip and the time stamp for when BC says this?

Thanks!

 

[Maja]

DA Motion to Quash K & B subpeona's for investigation files.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/14/3735487/20081014134536351.pdf



Interesting and some things are confirmed. No cooperation from 15 July.

Perhaps under council he was told to zip it.

 

[raisincharlie]

Perhaps under council he was told to zip it.

I'm sure this is the case - lawyer told him to zip it. That being most likely the case, lawyer should have zipped it with him as they both have been saying he has cooperated with LE and answered every question. Technically I suppose this is true since they have refused to respond to repeated requests from LE for Brad to make a statement. Doesn't leave either the lawyer or Brad looking very credible IMO.

 

[jmflu]

I make no such subjective assessment of her or her motives. Human memory is a funny thing though.

BC also forgot the name of his only nephew. Accomplished people do not necessarily have a good memory for all things. This might be more obvious among those in the geeky sciences.

Or, perhaps since BC hadn't even met his only nephew and didn't seem to be close with his brother, it was unimportant to him.

But other things he remembered easily, such as the name of the man Nancy went to breakfast with the morning after they spent their first date together. (She probably had prior plans with this person, and yet BC actually insinuates Nancy was dating someone else during the time she and BC were together in the deposition by giving this only example!)

 

[ncnative]

I recall that Brad's brother had never even met Nancy. Brad's family was not at their justice of the peace wedding.

Those of you who have all the info ingrained within your brain cells, feel free to look it up. I don't have time. I read it SOMEwhere on the affs or whatnot.

As for me, my message to Brad is: "It will all come out in the wash."

 

[Maja]

IRT (In reference to) BC not recalling Jennifer Windsor's name, I recall BC botched a Mr. Hail or Hall's name as well. Eight years is a long time and he has been with other women since her. I must say the fact he had her name a bit off is less of an eyebrow raiser than the substance of her testimony of his treatment of her.

He appears to me to be so hard-hearted that he would not recall the fact his actions caused her emotional pain. He more likely believes things just didn't "jive". I don't recall him being asked specifics about their relationship.


I'm clearly on NCs side and I believe her innocent blood is crying out to heaven and my prayer is on this earth we learn the truth.