Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #5

[RoughlyCollie]

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/17/3222032/1216322668-20080717151650387.pdf

Check out fact #8.

I've just seen this "suicide threat" mentioned twice in the last few posts and I don't know where that came from. Can someone fill me in please, or head me in the right direction so I can check that out? I don't know where I've missed it but I guess I have.

 

[Blink34]

She could have applied for new passports, saying theirs was lost/stolen.
Right? That shouldn't have taken too long.....

He would have needed to be present at the time of the application for a new one under the new laws, or certified custodial paperwork that she had sole custody, neither of which she had unfortunately.

 

[RR0004]

I think in some of these cases, the spouses have no idea that their husbands or wives are going to kill them.

I wish we had a way to identify warning signs to prevent this from happening. The killer spouses, I have noticed, rarely admit to what they did and thus their thought processes that led to murder are unknown.

Personally, I don't think murderers are fully human. There is a huge missing piece in their makeup. They are defective and they are dangerous.

ITA...and we have no idea of how many sociopaths live among us.

 

[NC-Curious]

Is not everyone entitled to an opinion, whether others agree or not?

 

[RoughlyCollie]

Yeah, I've known that to happen.

This whole thing begs the question: What happened to the money? $55K is a lot of money to most of us, I would think.

I wonder if she was tricked into signing for the money somehow. For example, she was told they would purchase rental property for an investment, and he did something else with the money.

The paper associated with Nancy's signature was notorized. So it may be more likely that she did indeed sign the paperwork. However, that doesn't preclude that the notary never actually witnessed Nancy signing the paperwork.

 

[pjop]

Wherego-
I responded at length to one of your posts yesterday, actually carrying it to a second thread to make sure you saw it. I find it interesting that you elected not to respond to it, yet post such an antagonistic question to taximom when there are up to 200 viewers on this thread at a time over the last few days. I am trying to understand why that is your only contribution to what amounts to hundreds of pages of posts, and Miss TaxiMom' opinion is shared by the majority- why?

I'm wondering if we have either a friend or family member of BC on this board. I do not understand the hostility, either. IMOO.
:waitasec:

 

[raisincharlie]

You want to know why, I'll tell you why. If 200 people here can express their opinion but I can't, the word dictatorship comes to mind. I am just trying to see what perhaps could be be an innocent person tried in the media and on an internet board. I have been on other boards on the internet and thankfully NONE are like this. I have never in my entire life seen a group so into validating and running up the number of post on the boards. Before I close, I want to go back to yesterday's point I was trying to make about serving on a jury.


To serve on a jury you must enter into the proceeding without having formed an opinion regarding guilt or innocence and that you decide the case based solely on an objective and unemotional examination of the evidence presented at trial.

With that said I would like to ask how many of you are going to disqualify you from being on that jury instead of saying that websleuthers would be great jurors.

Based on what I have seen here the statement "websleuthers would be great jurors is a very scary statement indeed". I'll go one step farther and say the scariest statement I have heard in a long time.

Just My Honest Opinion and I hope this is still America

Because 200 people have their opinions, which don't maybe fit with yours, it gives you the right to post hostile, inflammatory,and accusatory statements to make your case ?

Yes indeed - thank God we live in America. I think your sky is falling by the way. :crazy:

 

[raisincharlie]

Yeah, I've known that to happen.

This whole thing begs the question: What happened to the money? $55K is a lot of money to most of us, I would think.

I wonder if she was tricked into signing for the money somehow. For example, she was told they would purchase rental property for an investment, and he did something else with the money.

You know, if you read his blog at the Adventures of Brad webpage - right after he got his MBA, which corresponds to this time period, he makes several entries about how much work and cost was associated with getting his bike back up to snuff for the upcoming iron man episodes. Training costs money as well, it is possible the money went to those important activities.

WTA - it could have also gone for education costs associated with his MBA - possible.

 

[RR0004]

You want to know why, I'll tell you why. If 200 people here can express their opinion but I can't, the word dictatorship comes to mind. I am just trying to see what perhaps could be be an innocent person tried in the media and on an internet board. I have been on other boards on the internet and thankfully NONE are like this. I have never in my entire life seen a group so into validating and running up the number of post on the boards. Before I close, I want to go back to yesterday's point I was trying to make about serving on a jury.


To serve on a jury you must enter into the proceeding without having formed an opinion regarding guilt or innocence and that you decide the case based solely on an objective and unemotional examination of the evidence presented at trial.

With that said I would like to ask how many of you are going to disqualify you from being on that jury instead of saying that websleuthers would be great jurors.

Based on what I have seen here the statement "websleuthers would be great jurors is a very scary statement indeed". I'll go one step farther and say the scariest statement I have heard in a long time.

Just My Honest Opinion and I hope this is still America

Whoa...where do you think your opinion hasn't been validated? I truly am sorry if you feel that your posts have not been addressed, but there is no need to be rude. I believe we are extremely fair and balanced here. Obviously if we were familiar with a case and have discussed it at great length (and that IS what we do here...DISCUSS), we'd recluse ourselves from a jury. You misinterpreted what that poster said...and now I have to ask...why?

 

[RoughlyCollie]

Your rights to freedom of speech are all about being free of *government* interference in your speech.

This is a privately owned message board. The owner can restrict speech all s/he likes. She has freedom of association -- and can associate with whomever she likes, especially on her own message board.

I think Brad is guilty because I have common sense, and I know a lot about criminals and I have followed a lot of cases of this nature.

I could still serve on his jury because I am able to listen to the evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses and apply the law to the facts found by the jury ... regardless of my current opinion.

I suppose that since you brought this up, that you have a hard time either compartmentalizing your thought processes or keeping your emotions out of your response to cases -- especially if you sit on a jury.

We are not required to find Brad innocent until proven guilty. We are entitled to our opinions.

Anyway, I appreciate this board being here, and being provided for all of us to discuss cases and other matters, free of charge.

I think WS is the most civilized and polite and interesting crime board on the internet.

Respectfully,
RC

You want to know why, I'll tell you why. If 200 people here can express their opinion but I can't, the word dictatorship comes to mind. I am just trying to see what perhaps could be be an innocent person tried in the media and on an internet board. I have been on other boards on the internet and thankfully NONE are like this. I have never in my entire life seen a group so into validating and running up the number of post on the boards. Before I close, I want to go back to yesterday's point I was trying to make about serving on a jury.


To serve on a jury you must enter into the proceeding without having formed an opinion regarding guilt or innocence and that you decide the case based solely on an objective and unemotional examination of the evidence presented at trial.

With that said I would like to ask how many of you are going to disqualify you from being on that jury instead of saying that websleuthers would be great jurors.

Based on what I have seen here the statement "websleuthers would be great jurors is a very scary statement indeed". I'll go one step farther and say the scariest statement I have heard in a long time.

Just My Honest Opinion and I hope this is still America

 

[RR0004]

Yeah, I've known that to happen.

This whole thing begs the question: What happened to the money? $55K is a lot of money to most of us, I would think.

I wonder if she was tricked into signing for the money somehow. For example, she was told they would purchase rental property for an investment, and he did something else with the money.

It's been known to happen.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

As your basic, middle-aged, computer potato, I am completely out of the loop about athletic training, equipment, and other costs.

Wow! Personally, I'd rather go to Europe for a nice, long vacation.

You know, if you read his blog at the Adventures of Brad webpage - right after he got his MBA, which corresponds to this time period, he makes several entries about how much work and cost was associated with getting his bike back up to snuff for the upcoming iron man episodes. Training costs money as well, it is possible the money went to those important activities.

 

[headndownstream]

Interesting speculation about the finances, I'd never think to do what you think he might have been doing. I always wished I was more financially savoy!

I was wondering what anyone thinks of this...the friend Jessie or Jessica said Nancy was going to help her paint, then she was going to help Nancy get organized, or organize her house, something like that. If she meant clean the house, ok, but was she helping Nancy to organize a move of some kind? The wording of it sounded sort of unusual to me.

If so, I can finally see why the next day she called 911 as soon as she hung up talking with Brad. So far I've had a bit of a problem with her calling just as soon as she heard Nancy 'hadn't come back from jogging'. But if the two of them conspired to finally help Nancy get out of there, like very soon, he quite possibly became violent at this time.

What do you think, Could this be why he allegedly murdered her early Sat am, so she couldn't 'organize' and leave?

 

[maconrich]

It's dangerous for the law in a state to basically force divorcing couples to live together in the same domicile, IMO.

NC doesn't do that -- I guess that's one (and maybe the only) positive about having to live separately for a year prior to divorce...

 

[Blink34]

You want to know why, I'll tell you why. If 200 people here can express their opinion but I can't, the word dictatorship comes to mind. I am just trying to see what perhaps could be be an innocent person tried in the media and on an internet board. I have been on other boards on the internet and thankfully NONE are like this. I have never in my entire life seen a group so into validating and running up the number of post on the boards. Before I close, I want to go back to yesterday's point I was trying to make about serving on a jury.


To serve on a jury you must enter into the proceeding without having formed an opinion regarding guilt or innocence and that you decide the case based solely on an objective and unemotional examination of the evidence presented at trial.

With that said I would like to ask how many of you are going to disqualify you from being on that jury instead of saying that websleuthers would be great jurors.

Based on what I have seen here the statement "websleuthers would be great jurors is a very scary statement indeed". I'll go one step farther and say the scariest statement I have heard in a long time.

Just My Honest Opinion and I hope this is still America

Actually, I agree completely that everyone is entitled to their opinion. You are the only person I saw that critisized others for theirs in the name of some ridiculous mock jury comment. You are stating the obvious. But what you are missing is the fact that your familiarity with this case would precude you from the same "pool".

It is clear from your comments that you do not understand the voir dire process. People do not EXCLUDE themselves from jury empanelment, opposing attorneys do based on their preemptive challenges or inclusions, and in some cases judges. Therefore, what your objecting to exactly is not even accurate or applicable in any way.
I get you feel opinions here are ahead of something, but of what? What opinions and facts that do not support them are you offering to contradict what is being said?
From where I sit, you have only stopped here to criticsize others for expressing their beliefs that WE are entitled to, which makes you the one that is bias, imo.

BTW, in a dictatorship, there are no blogs, I am out of food for the troll.

 

[raisincharlie]

As your basic, middle-aged, computer potato, I am completely out of the loop about athletic training, equipment, and other costs.

Wow! Personally, I'd rather go to Europe for a nice, long vacation.

He did that , the trip to France to go mountain climbing, the year before :crazy:

 

[RR0004]

Well, not always. Usually the attorney talks to the potential client initially for free. Then the payment schedule is agreed upon. Sometimes the lawyer doesn't get paid until he can get it from the husband (on the judge's order). Sometimes the lawyer takes the case but doesn't actually do any work on it until s/he is paid up to date.

There are plenty of divorce attorneys who will take $1-$2 K to get started on a case.

It could be that no papers were filed because Nancy told the lawyer to hold off until she gave the okay.

I don't think an attorney was all that involved in this situation. Maybe it's different in NC, but usually the issuance of a restraining order will get the husband out of the house. It sure doesn't prevent murder, however.

It's dangerous for the law in a state to basically force divorcing couples to live together in the same domicile, IMO.

Tell me about it...but it happens A LOT! It's not healthy for anyone involved.

 

[Blink34]

Interesting speculation about the finances, I'd never think to do what you think he might have been doing. I always wished I was more financially savoy!

I was wondering what anyone thinks of this...the friend Jessie or Jessica said Nancy was going to help her paint, then she was going to help Nancy get organized, or organize her house, something like that. If she meant clean the house, ok, but was she helping Nancy to organize a move of some kind? The wording of it sounded sort of unusual to me.

If so, I can finally see why the next day she called 911 as soon as she hung up talking with Brad. So far I've had a bit of a problem with her calling just as soon as she heard Nancy 'hadn't come back from jogging'. But if the two of them conspired to finally help Nancy get out of there, like very soon, he quite possibly became violent at this time.

What do you think, Could this be why he allegedly murdered her early Sat am, so she couldn't 'organize' and leave?

I thought it possible that she wasnt really going to paint but to look for a place to live or see an attorney and Mrs. Adams was going with her and he found out, I think that is really possible.

 

[Blink34]

Stranger=brother of a co-worker who befriended me via phone and physically came and removed me and my four month old son....

I dont get this?

 

[NC-Curious]

I dont get this?

I was explaining how I got out of my bad situation....Part of a previous post..never mind....