Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #15

[Just the Fax]

So this does give them the right to place them on the vehicles you are saying?

Yes they can.

[Just the Fax]

Hi. I'm a newbie who has been reading/following for a couple of weeks. I think I've read almost every post, so I feel up-to-date for the most part. There are so many things I want to comment on, but I'll stick to one of the points that's being discussed currently and that's the jacket. IMO, wearing a jacket early in the a.m. in a grocery store doesn't mean a thing/point to guilt. I'm local to the case (live about 4 miles away) and I carry a light jacket everywhere in the summer and wear it lots of places because they air condition the BEJEEZUS out of everywhere--especially in grocery stores. (I never realized I look so suspicious as a result!!) Now, before you point it out, I know he was in and out quickly, but I'll also wear a jacket in the eve/morning if I'm feeling a bit cool. I am an NC native and not Canadian, but I don't believe wearing a jacket is against the law in July, even here in good ol' North Carolina.

Just so you know, I'm not Brad, a friend of Brad's, a casual acquaintance of Brads, Brad's att'y or involved in any way with Brad. Just interested in the case and making observations.

So, Howdy EVERYONE! :Banane19:

FD

Welcome to the board.

The weather for Saturday in Cary NC

71 at 4 am with very sticky 66 degree dew point, making it fairly humid.
Speaking from my personal experience, wearing a jacket to run to the store in that weather would be insane.

Shorts, a Tee and flops would do the trick

[momto3kids]

Dang....I just wish I had asked about the checkout. I was so taken back when the person started talking to me I asked little and listened.

I will have to check and see if the U-Scan is open at the early hours. I was thinking they are not. Many times it requires a cashiers help for various reasons so they just keep a lane open to eliminate this.

I have been in HT at midnight and had them tell a customer to save time to go to U-Scan, so maybe they are open. I just don't know if they shut it down at a particular time. I know 4 of 8 are closed down at a certain time..but the other 4...I just don't know.

[FullDisclosure]

FD

Welcome to the board.

The weather for Saturday in Cary NC

71 at 4 am with very sticky 66 degree dew point, making it fairly humid.
Speaking from my personal experience, wearing a jacket to run to the store in that weather would be insane.

Shorts, a Tee and flops would do the trick

You callin' me insane?? :crazy:

Seriously, I'd be wearing my jacket....oh, well...

Anyway,
Thanks for the welcome!

[raisincharlie]

Dang....I just wish I had asked about the checkout. I was so taken back when the person started talking to me I asked little and listened.

I will have to check and see if the U-Scan is open at the early hours. I was thinking they are not. Many times it requires a cashiers help for various reasons so they just keep a lane open to eliminate this.

I have been in HT at midnight and had them tell a customer to save time to go to U-Scan, so maybe they are open. I just don't know if they shut it down at a particular time. I know 4 of 8 are closed down at a certain time..but the other 4...I just don't know.

For identification purposes - it might be better if he had to face a cashier. May be why someone remembered him being there - saw his face the next day on the tube.

[Zoe]

re: the jacket and ball cap scenario @ 4:20 am -- perhaps BC thought those items would disguise his appearance just enough so that, even w/the high-tech we have nowadays, there could be no positive id. i walked through my HT in Raleigh yesterday and noted the cameras were in the ceiling-area...i could see how, with a cap and jacket on and the intent to keep your head down, one could walk through the store w/o the ceiling cameras seeing your face clearly. now, having said that, i am sure there have to be other cameras not in the ceiling that could catch a glimpse of him as he walked towards the detergent aisle. for example, there are several cameras pointing out from the manager's desk at the HT i frequent, which appear to point at the cashier's area and would likely catch the front main aisle area. but that's a Raleigh HT, not the Cary one.
the self-checkout, if he used that manner to make his purchase, his hand(s) would definitely be in the picture. THAT may be one thing he didn't think of --

[momto3kids]

Fulldisclosure....I think with all the talk about long sleeves on here it has most everyone suspecting something.

Personally I can see if he was going to be gone for hours and not knowing the weather conditions he would grab his jacket...for a just in case reason. In and out of the store just doesn't sound reason enough to put a jacket on, IMO.

As you probably read it has been discussed he might have scratch marks on his arms. I don't know who began that or why, but it is a possible scenario.

The jacket might or might not be key is what we are wondering.

[raisincharlie]

re: the jacket and ball cap scenario @ 4:20 am -- perhaps BC thought those items would disguise his appearance just enough so that, even w/the high-tech we have nowadays, there could be no positive id. i walked through my HT in Raleigh yesterday and noted the cameras were in the ceiling-area...i could see how, with a cap and jacket on and the intent to keep your head down, one could walk through the store w/o the ceiling cameras seeing your face clearly. now, having said that, i am sure there have to be other cameras not in the ceiling that could catch a glimpse of him as he walked towards the detergent aisle. for example, there are several cameras pointing out from the manager's desk at the HT i frequent, which appear to point at the cashier's area and would likely catch the front main aisle area. but that's a Raleigh HT, not the Cary one.
the self-checkout, if he used that manner to make his purchase, his hand(s) would definitely be in the picture. THAT may be one thing he didn't think of --

That's what I was wondering Zoe - his wedding band has a design on it - easy enough to check it out.

[Zoe]

That's what I was wondering Zoe - his wedding band has a design on it - easy enough to check it out.

yeah - unless he took it off. i mean, i have to believe his adrenalin was rather high at this point. but, if he thought it through enough to try and disguise himself, maybe he remembered to take the ring off.

[raisincharlie]

yeah - unless he took it off. i mean, i have to believe his adrenalin was rather high at this point. but, if he thought it through enough to try and disguise himself, maybe he remembered to take the ring off.

Certainly possible.:)

[reddress58]

yeah - unless he took it off. i mean, i have to believe his adrenalin was rather high at this point. but, if he thought it through enough to try and disguise himself, maybe he remembered to take the ring off.
I doubt at that point in their relationship/marriage he even wore a wedding band given the anger and pending separation. He probably put it on for the news conference for effect.

[Zoe]

I doubt at that point in their relationship/marriage he even wore a wedding band given the anger and pending separation. He probably put it on for the news conference for effect.

Good point.

[reddress58]

I actually think they were attacking the person who posted on a different thread about the retention pond or as I call it silt basin. They made sure to let us know they were an 'environmental engineer'.:boohoo:

This person has jumped around to other cases before NC so I don't think it is BC...just a person looking start problems. :loser:
Mom, please look at my post on page 9. This is exactly what i was bringing to RC's attention.

[Sewing_Buddy]

Jonesmouse,

First welcome. I have a question maybe you can study on the answer. You reference the cameras at the self checkouts, do you think it is possible that those cameras would show a person's hand in the frame as they were placing the items on the scale / scanner ?

The reason I ask is in the 14 July 630 press conference, the camera does several zoom in shots of Brads hands. These shots focus on his wedding band and give a pretty good view of it. Do you think there is any possibility that the check out cameras may also have picked up a shot or two of this wedding band ?

The shots are at 5:15 through 5:19 and another at 9:33 in the press conference noted above and if this link works you can view that here:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3207082/

Just curious

Did Brad always wear his wedding band?
It could be that sometime before the first press conference, he decided to put it on so everyone would think he was still concerned about Nancy and saving their marriage.
Just a thought.....

[FullDisclosure]

Fulldisclosure....I think with all the talk about long sleeves on here it has most everyone suspecting something.

Personally I can see if he was going to be gone for hours and not knowing the weather conditions he would grab his jacket...for a just in case reason. In and out of the store just doesn't sound reason enough to put a jacket on, IMO.

As you probably read it has been discussed he might have scratch marks on his arms. I don't know who began that or why, but it is a possible scenario.

The jacket might or might not be key is what we are wondering.

Yes, Mom, I picked up on that. I did read the posts about the long sleeves (and saw it myself on the local news) which, at mid-day outside, is more suspicious to me than in the grocery store in the early morning hours...and by early morning I mean between 6 and 7. I'll believe the 4:20 time when LE has some proof of that.

As for everyone questioning why he went back to HT to get the record and saying THAT makes him look guilty--I disagree. If there were such speculation about me, even if I hadn't been named as a suspect or a POI, I'd do the same thing. I would WANT to just sit tight, but I think I'd feel compelled to do whatever I could to prove my innocence IF I DIDN'T do it.

JMHO

[raisincharlie]

I doubt at that point in their relationship/marriage he even wore a wedding band given the anger and pending separation. He probably put it on for the news conference for effect.

I quess all those friends that filed affidavits would know. I'm kinda surprised they wouldn't have mentioned it , him NOT wearing a wedding band, since they pretty much mentioned everything else. :crazy:

[momto3kids]

Let me try to explain this HT....

You have to enter on the right side of the store (facing the store), the left side is locked around 11pm. Once you enter...produce on right, about 24 registers (including U-Scan) on your left and a few display shelves (picnic items or whatnots). Pass the shelves and turn left...approx 10 aisles down on his right is the detergent. While walking he can SEE the detergent, it sits right there facing him (you can't miss it)...the aisles are very wide in HT. The 1st product being in this aisle is TIDE.

He get's it and now has to check out. Is he familiar with U-Scan or is it open?, I don't know. But what I do know is U-Scan is the furthest check out from where he has to get back outside. Yes, it is possible he used it, but if not...he goes to the cashier with the lit sign, waits for them to come since they might be stocking and not sitting waiting for him...then out the door.

Problem...no outside camera's!

[raisincharlie]

Yes, Mom, I picked up on that. I did read the posts about the long sleeves (and saw it myself on the local news) which, at mid-day outside, is more suspicious to me than in the grocery store in the early morning hours...and by early morning I mean between 6 and 7. I'll believe the 4:20 time when LE has some proof of that.

As for everyone questioning why he went back to HT to get the record and saying THAT makes him look guilty--I disagree. If there were such speculation about me, even if I hadn't been named as a suspect or a POI, I'd do the same thing. I would WANT to just sit tight, but I think I'd feel compelled to do whatever I could to prove my innocence IF I DIDN'T do it.

JMHO

FullDisclosure,

I quess I have trouble with it because he is simply not named a suspect or even a POI. What does he have to prove at this point - there is not one single word spoken by LE saying he is a suspect.

I believe he used that information in his affidavit to get out that he he went to the store at a certain time. He described those times in great detail.

My brain is asking why in an affidavit relating to the custody of his children, is he even remotely thinking this has anything to do with his ability as a parent. Beyond me.

[DB in FV]

FD,

Welcome! (even though I'm basically new myself)

Your jacket, by itself, wouldn't necessarily cause any alarm.

15 years ago, I was the grocery manager for a 24hr store, which meant a lot of overnights. Everyone was taught to see everyone who entered the store. Someone in a light jacket, unzipped, who seemed normal, would not seem unusual.

IF (big IF) all the speculation is true, and he went to the store at 4:20am, bundled up in a jacket with a hat pulled over his face, he would have been noticed. When I was working that shift, the cashier would have made it a point to alert me to his presence, and we would have known where he was at all times, even if we didn't "watch him" 100% of the time. It's probably safe to assume that if all the speculation is true, BC probably wouldn't have seemed normal. He probably would have been quiet and nervous, which would cause more red flags for the store personnel. They would have been glad to see him leave.

The store employees would have noticed him out of self-preservation, and then when he was shown on WRAL they would have probably recognized him in about 3 seconds.

[reddress58]

Yes, Mom, I picked up on that. I did read the posts about the long sleeves (and saw it myself on the local news) which, at mid-day outside, is more suspicious to me than in the grocery store in the early morning hours...and by early morning I mean between 6 and 7. I'll believe the 4:20 time when LE has some proof of that.

As for everyone questioning why he went back to HT to get the record and saying THAT makes him look guilty--I disagree. If there were such speculation about me, even if I hadn't been named as a suspect or a POI, I'd do the same thing. I would WANT to just sit tight, but I think I'd feel compelled to do whatever I could to prove my innocence IF I DIDN'T do it.

JMHO
I have to agree with you about the receipts and the jacket. I ALWAYS freeze in the GS regardless of the outside temp, and I carry a jacket or sweater for the same reason. Also, if I were writing an affidavit to defend myself, even if I knew the general time I was at a location, I'd check whatever source was available to support my time frame. If anyone were to question his affidavit, he could point to the receipts to backup the items he bought and the time he bought them. In other words, it's the chicken & egg scenerio.

[reddress58]

I quess all those friends that filed affidavits would know. I'm kinda surprised they wouldn't have mentioned it , him NOT wearing a wedding band, since they pretty much mentioned everything else. :crazy:
Maybe none of them noticied his hands during the conference and it didn't occur to them to mention he didn't wear his band in the affidavits. Or...one or more may have noticed, and pointed it out to LE after the conference.

[raisincharlie]

I have to agree with you about the receipts and the jacket. I ALWAYS freeze in the GS regardless of the outside temp, and I carry a jacket or sweater for the same reason. Also, if I were writing an affidavit to defend myself, even if I knew the general time I was at a location, I'd check whatever source was available to support my time frame. If anyone were to question his affidavit, he could point to the receipts to backup the items he bought and the time he bought them. In other words, it's the chicken & egg scenerio.

There you go - an affidavit to defend ones-self. Brad's affidavit was suppose to be about his ability as a parent - not to defend himself about a simple visit to the store that he is apparently very concerned about in how that is perceived by the public.

He took the opportunity to defend himself rather than show he should keep his kids. Now to me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The time to defend himself about Nancy's murder will come - but I can't find the relevance in a child custody action. The plaintiffs did indeed say Nancy did not go for a run - but how does his visit to the store defend him against that subtle accusation ?

[FullDisclosure]

FullDisclosure,

I quess I have trouble with it because he is simply not named a suspect or even a POI. What does he have to prove at this point - there is not one single word spoken by LE saying he is a suspect.

I believe he used that information in his affidavit to get out that he he went to the store at a certain time. He described those times in great detail.

My brain is asking why in an affidavit relating to the custody of his children, is he even remotely thinking this has anything to do with his ability as a parent. Beyond me.

I hear exactly what you're saying, RC. He isn't named, but there is MUCH speculation--you need look no further than this board! That's why I said that, if it were me, I'd WANT to sit tight, but I'd feel compelled to defend myself in light of all the SPECULATION. Maybe not the right thing to do when not yet named, but remember, he's been described HERE as very concerned about appearances/image, etc.....that may be reason enough to feel the need to defend himself, IMO.

As for the affidavits, I believe that he was already defending himself regarding all the speculation...which, IMO, maybe wasn't the smartest move on the part of his atty's...

[momto3kids]

Mom, please look at my post on page 9. This is exactly what i was bringing to RC's attention.

RDD58....this is what I was referring to. Thanks for pointing it out. I thought the retention basin was discussed on a different thread...photo's or theories? I was wrong, it was on this thread I see.

[raisincharlie]

<snip>

As for the affidavits, I believe that he was already defending himself regarding all the speculation...which, IMO, maybe wasn't the smartest move on the part of his atty's...

Do I ever agree with you on this ! :)

[reddress58]

Let me try to explain this HT....

You have to enter on the right side of the store (facing the store), the left side is locked around 11pm. Once you enter...produce on right, about 24 registers (including U-Scan) on your left and a few display shelves (picnic items or whatnots). Pass the shelves and turn left...approx 10 aisles down on his right is the detergent. While walking he can SEE the detergent, it sits right there facing him (you can't miss it)...the aisles are very wide in HT. The 1st product being in this aisle is TIDE.

He get's it and now has to check out. Is he familiar with U-Scan or is it open?, I don't know. But what I do know is U-Scan is the furthest check out from where he has to get back outside. Yes, it is possible he used it, but if not...he goes to the cashier with the lit sign, waits for them to come since they might be stocking and not sitting waiting for him...then out the door.

Problem...no outside camera's!
On a previous post I mentioned a 2am run to HT I made recently with a friend who needed a glucose kit. There was only one checkout open and it was the one closest to the right side entrance. Nothing else, not even the self-scanner was open. There were quite a few employees in the store at the time...mostly stocking shelves. The girl who checked us out was not waiting behind the counter, but actually had to leave a stocking job to wait on us.

[FullDisclosure]

FD,

Welcome! (even though I'm basically new myself)

Your jacket, by itself, wouldn't necessarily cause any alarm.

15 years ago, I was the grocery manager for a 24hr store, which meant a lot of overnights. Everyone was taught to see everyone who entered the store. Someone in a light jacket, unzipped, who seemed normal, would not seem unusual.

IF (big IF) all the speculation is true, and he went to the store at 4:20am, bundled up in a jacket with a hat pulled over his face, he would have been noticed. When I was working that shift, the cashier would have made it a point to alert me to his presence, and we would have known where he was at all times, even if we didn't "watch him" 100% of the time. It's probably safe to assume that if all the speculation is true, BC probably wouldn't have seemed normal. He probably would have been quiet and nervous, which would cause more red flags for the store personnel. They would have been glad to see him leave.

The store employees would have noticed him out of self-preservation, and then when he was shown on WRAL they would have probably recognized him in about 3 seconds.

Thanks for the welcome!

Good point--I wear a jacket, but I think I usually act fairly normal... :waitasec:

I'd be interested to know if he was noticed by personnel (acting suspiciously) before NC's body was found, or if people only noticed "after the fact." Hmmmmm....

[reddress58]

There you go - an affidavit to defend ones-self. Brad's affidavit was suppose to be about his ability as a parent - not to defend himself about a simple visit to the store that he is apparently very concerned about in how that is perceived by the public.

He took the opportunity to defend himself rather than show he should keep his kids. Now to me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The time to defend himself about Nancy's murder will come - but I can't find the relevance in a child custody action. The plaintiffs did indeed say Nancy did not go for a run - but how does his visit to the store defend him against that subtle accusation ?
Because WE on this site had already alerted the general population of his run to the store for detergent (it was noted as bleach at the time). I'm sure Brad felt he needed to clear that matter up for LE, the family, family attorney...anyone who would use that against him to take his children away.

[momto3kids]

On a previous post I mentioned a 2am run to HT I made recently with a friend who needed a glucose kit. There was only one checkout open and it was the one closest to the right side entrance. Nothing else, not even the self-scanner was open. There were quite a few employees in the store at the time...mostly stocking shelves. The girl who checked us out was not waiting behind the counter, but actually had to leave a stocking job to wait on us.

OK..so you just confirmed what I have been saying. Right side entry, check out with cashier, cashier stocking, etc. Thanks so much because I haven't gone lately past midnight..since things do change this setup could have also.

[SleuthyGal]

Hi Reddress!

LOL. I love going to the refrig/frozen foods section in grocery stores, esp in the summer! I don't handle this NC heat very well so those colder areas are like an oasis for me! I could not imagine putting on a jacket to go into the grocery store. Now, if I were to go to a restaurant where they pump out the AC and I'd be there for an hour+ then yes I'd want a jacket or sweater just in case. Most men tolerate cold better than women so any guy putting on a jacket in the summer would (IMHO) be kind of strange. Unless it was my 82 yr old father, who is on blood thinners and is always cold.

[FullDisclosure]

Do I ever agree with you on this ! :)

RC,

I knew we'd find some common ground!

Seriously, I find your posts intelligent and thoughtful, and appreciate the balance that you bring to the board. I've been a little nervous about jumping in to the conversation, but you guys are making me feel welcome even when we don't totally agree!

Thanks:)

[d99gr81]

How do you know he's actively working from home now? If he's on leave, wouldn't that mean leave from any duties regardless of venue?

no he is on leave...but will work from home

[reddress58]

OK..so you just confirmed what I have been saying. Right side entry, check out with cashier, cashier stocking, etc. Thanks so much because I haven't gone lately past midnight..since things do change this setup could have also.
P.S. We were the only customers in the store. All eyes were on us, too. Human nature to look to who's walking in when few people actually are.

[reddress58]

Hi Reddress!

LOL. I love going to the refrig/frozen foods section in grocery stores, esp in the summer! I don't handle this NC heat very well so those colder areas are like an oasis for me! I could not imagine putting on a jacket to go into the grocery store. Now, if I were to go to a restaurant where they pump out the AC and I'd be there for an hour+ then yes I'd want a jacket or sweater just in case. Most men tolerate cold better than women so any guy putting on a jacket in the summer would (IMHO) be kind of strange. Unless it was my 82 yr old father, who is on blood thinners and is always cold.
He's an athlete. No body fat.

[SleuthyGal]

He's an athlete. No body fat.

OH! Good point! :waitasec:

[FullDisclosure]

I have to agree with you about the receipts and the jacket. I ALWAYS freeze in the GS regardless of the outside temp, and I carry a jacket or sweater for the same reason. Also, if I were writing an affidavit to defend myself, even if I knew the general time I was at a location, I'd check whatever source was available to support my time frame. If anyone were to question his affidavit, he could point to the receipts to backup the items he bought and the time he bought them. In other words, it's the chicken & egg scenerio.

Thanks for articulating what I was trying to say about the affidavit so well, Red :)

[momto3kids]

To take this a step further...

Why would anyone need to request the transaction history?

Simply state you got up around 5:45, went to get milk around 6am...got home and 30 minutes later realized you forgot to get juice for the little one...back to the store and picked up detergent since it was mentioned earlier they were out. NC had waited until he got home and left for her jog at 7am. How simple is that?

The LE doesn't expect anyone to know the exact time to the minute they were at the store, but I assume they do expect you to remember what time you got up that morning and the sequence of events.

IMO approx was what they needed. SO why did he feel he needed to check the exact time of the transactions????????

I posted this last night when we discussed the VIC transaction history.
I still believe if he was asked about leaving home....how hard is it to remember when he got up and say 2 trips before NC left to go jogging. It was still the same day they discussed this with him...Personally they don't need exact time, approx. would do. IMO

[SleuthyGal]

I posted this last night when we discussed the VIC transaction history.
I still believe if he was asked about leaving home....how hard is it to remember when he got up and say 2 trips before NC left to go jogging. It was still the same day they discussed this with him...Personally they don't need exact time, approx. would do. IMO

Mom, do you think the fact that he did get very exact on this made it seem more suspicious to LE?

[d99gr81]

I wear a light golf jacket in the early mornings so really you guys are stretching. Fact is IF he really had scratches..(which one on here said they saw in news conference but I sure didn't see them) and IF he really bought bleach he would A) have been arrested and B) Bleach (which he says was bleach but regular detergent) still won't hide blood....period. If they had even one of the theories that some of you had he would have been arrested.

As for defending himself in the Affidavits... He absolutely had the right to defend himself in every way... those are his kids... and if innocent he has every right... I would fight my ass off to defend myself ...especially if I was innocent.

[FullDisclosure]

i wear a light golf jacket in the early mornings so really you guys are stretching. Fact is if he really had scratches..(which one on here said they saw in news conference but i sure didn't see them) and if he really bought bleach he would a) have been arrested and b) bleach (which he says was bleach but regular detergent) still won't hide blood....period. If they had even one of the theories that some of you had he would have been arrested.

As for defending himself in the affidavits... He absolutely had the right to defend himself in every way... Those are his kids... And if innocent he has every right... I would fight my ass off to defend myself ...especially if i was innocent.

bingo!

[raisincharlie]

Because WE on this site had already alerted the general population of his run to the store for detergent (it was noted as bleach at the time). I'm sure Brad felt he needed to clear that matter up for LE, the family, family attorney...anyone who would use that against him to take his children away.


Please don't get aggravated with me as it is these kinds of conversations which bring out lots of points and the more we have the better - okay ?

I agree - there is no doubt in my mind he was defending himself since he put in caps - WELL AFTER DAWN when referencing this topic. However if his lawyer ever thought for a single minute about putting him on the stand during the custody hearing - he would be definitely dumber than a box of rocks.

I don't see how a judge could possibly use speculation, from either side, the public, or even LE to make a decision of such magnitude, especially on behalf of those children. The judge simply would not do that. The judge did the smart thing and sent them to his chambers so they could hash it out themselves rather than dragging all this into the public.

This is my bottom line - none of this was admissable in reality. There was nothing to defend. The only way Brad could defend himself is to prove Nancy was alive - not that he was at a store at a certain time or not at a store at a different time. If he proved Nancy was alive at 7 am - the rest is moot.

[momto3kids]

Mom, do you think the fact that he did get very exact on this made it seem more suspicious to LE?

SG...I am missing what you mean by exact. Sorry

[raisincharlie]

RC,

I knew we'd find some common ground!

Seriously, I find your posts intelligent and thoughtful, and appreciate the balance that you bring to the board. I've been a little nervous about jumping in to the conversation, but you guys are making me feel welcome even when we don't totally agree!

Thanks:)

I'm glad you feel welcome - nothing to be scared of here. Well maybe now and then, but it is mostly good. I can definitely appreciate sensible opposing views - makes me study a bit harder. :crazy:

[raisincharlie]

He's an athlete. No body fat.

He gave that up in 2007 according to his defense - I mean affidavit - :truce:

[SleuthyGal]

SG...I am missing what you mean by exact. Sorry

I mean that he said he went 'at 6:15am' to get detergent, then back 'at 6:40am' to get juice/milk.

[mahmoo]

I'm glad you feel welcome - nothing to be scared of here. Well maybe now and then, but it is mostly good. I can definitely appreciate sensible opposing views - makes me study a bit harder. :crazy:

I agree RC.....the variety of opinions and theories is what makes following & delving into the cases interesting.....if we all always thought and felt the exact same way it would probably get a little boring.

Welcome to WS FullDisclosure :wave:

[reddress58]

Please don't get aggravated with me as it is these kinds of conversations which bring out lots of points and the more we have the better - okay ?

I agree - there is no doubt in my mind he was defending himself since he put in caps - WELL AFTER DAWN when referencing this topic. However if his lawyer ever thought for a single minute about putting him on the stand during the custody hearing - he would be definitely dumber than a box of rocks.

I don't see how a judge could possibly use speculation, from either side, the public, or even LE to make a decision of such magnitude, especially on behalf of those children. The judge simply would not do that. The judge did the smart thing and sent them to his chambers so they could hash it out themselves rather than dragging all this into the public.

This is my bottom line - none of this was admissable in reality. There was nothing to defend. The only way Brad could defend himself is to prove Nancy was alive - not that he was at a store at a certain time or not at a store at a different time. If he proved Nancy was alive at 7 am - the rest is moot.
Oh, please don't think I'm aggrevated. Quite opposite. I agree with you about the merit of doing what he did with the receipts. It was pointless leagally. But I don't think the legal stance in the custody case was his only motivation. More so... the speculation going around and him. Either 1) thought he had it all figured out and didn't expect the store to be an issue, so went back to see how the side he told differed from what the receipts would show and/or 2) Felt the affidavit would be a good forum to squelch the rumors...especially with "proof" he was telling the truth.

[reddress58]

He gave that up in 2007 according to his defense - I mean affidavit - :truce:
Oh, gosh yes! How can I forget. (tongue in cheek)

[raisincharlie]

Oh, please don't think I'm aggrevated. Quite opposite. I agree with you about the merit of doing what he did with the receipts. It was pointless leagally. But I don't think the legal stance in the custody case was his only motivation. More so... the speculation going around and him. Either 1) thought he had it all figured out and didn't expect the store to be an issue, so went back to see how the side he told differed from what the receipts would show and/or 2) Felt the affidavit would be a good forum to squelch the rumors...especially with "proof" he was telling the truth.

Yes, I agree.

[raisincharlie]

no he is on leave...but will work from home

Did Cisco give him some new computers to work with ? I'll wager the ones that were in his home on the 15th are now locked away in an evidence vault.

[FullDisclosure]

snip*

I don't see how a judge could possibly use speculation, from either side, the public, or even LE to make a decision of such magnitude, especially on behalf of those children. The judge simply would not do that. The judge did the smart thing and sent them to his chambers so they could hash it out themselves rather than dragging all this into the public.

This is my bottom line - none of this was admissable in reality. There was nothing to defend. The only way Brad could defend himself is to prove Nancy was alive - not that he was at a store at a certain time or not at a store at a different time. If he proved Nancy was alive at 7 am - the rest is moot.

My point here is that he felt compelled to defend himself, admissible or not. I would think it would be EXTREMELY difficult to see my name dragged through the mud (even if it were on a message board) and not defend myself. That's all I'm saying.

Wait! There's more!

...to me he looks less guilty by wanting to obtain this info...he's gotta be smart enough to know that they'll check ALL of the tapes, yes? I just gotta think that he wants to prove that he wasn't there at 4:00 (or 4:20 or whatever) buying BLEACH (oops now we're saying detergent).

Maybe I just want to believe him. I don't know why. But if he didn't do this....WOW...I can't even imagine what he's going through...

[reddress58]

Please don't get aggravated with me as it is these kinds of conversations which bring out lots of points and the more we have the better - okay ?

I agree - there is no doubt in my mind he was defending himself since he put in caps - WELL AFTER DAWN when referencing this topic. However if his lawyer ever thought for a single minute about putting him on the stand during the custody hearing - he would be definitely dumber than a box of rocks.

I don't see how a judge could possibly use speculation, from either side, the public, or even LE to make a decision of such magnitude, especially on behalf of those children. The judge simply would not do that. The judge did the smart thing and sent them to his chambers so they could hash it out themselves rather than dragging all this into the public.

This is my bottom line - none of this was admissable in reality. There was nothing to defend. The only way Brad could defend himself is to prove Nancy was alive - not that he was at a store at a certain time or not at a store at a different time. If he proved Nancy was alive at 7 am - the rest is moot.
Who would be in the chambers. I'm thinking Brad and his attorney in one room; NC's family & Alice Stubbs in another. Would the judge be there? Did they have a mediator? Would LE be present or involved in any way? Something or someone change BC's mind in 90 minutes about persuing child custody...at least for the present. What was it and who delivered the information?

[momto3kids]

I wear a light golf jacket in the early mornings so really you guys are stretching. Fact is IF he really had scratches..(which one on here said they saw in news conference but I sure didn't see them) and IF he really bought bleach he would A) have been arrested and B) Bleach (which he says was bleach but regular detergent) still won't hide blood....period. If they had even one of the theories that some of you had he would have been arrested.

As for defending himself in the Affidavits... He absolutely had the right to defend himself in every way... those are his kids... and if innocent he has every right... I would fight my ass off to defend myself ...especially if I was innocent.

I think since he wore long sleeves it was speculation he had scratches. Maybe someone knows or saw something we didn't. I don't know and I don't know who posted it.

After my original post I came back on shortly after and stated it was not bleach and clarified it. I am positive I did and many know I did. The line could be retracted since it stated who told me, I don't know I haven't checked for it.

I totally disagree he would already be arrested if this purchase was made. Buying bleach, detergent or any item from HT only proves he is a liar.

Now if he bought nail clippers, lime green shoe laces, clorax wipes and a scrub brush...and she was found with lime green shoe laces, nails clipped back, scrubbed and cleaned. Then you might have an immediate arrest! IMO

[d99gr81]

My point here is that he felt compelled to defend himself, admissible or not. I would think it would be EXTREMELY difficult to see my name dragged through the mud (even if it were on a message board) and not defend myself. That's all I'm saying.

Wait! There's more!

...to me he looks less guilty by wanting to obtain this info...he's gotta be smart enough to know that they'll check ALL of the tapes, yes? I just gotta think that he wants to prove that he wasn't there at 4:00 (or 4:20 or whatever) buying BLEACH (oops now we're saying detergent).

Maybe I just want to believe him. I don't know why. But if he didn't do this....WOW...I can't even imagine what he's going through...

Absolutely agree... I wouldn't care less what ANYONE thought... I was innocent and those are my babies! The more innocent I am the more I FIGHT.

[Just the Fax]

Did Brad always wear his wedding band?
It could be that sometime before the first press conference, he decided to put it on so everyone would think he was still concerned about Nancy and saving their marriage.
Just a thought.....

I would be willing to bet a man that was served divorce papers and in the process of dissolving the marriage would wear a wedding band.....interesting question .

[d99gr81]

I think since he wore long sleeves it was speculation he had scratches. Maybe someone knows or saw something we didn't. I don't know and I don't know who posted it.

After my original post I came back on shortly after and stated it was not bleach and clarified it. I am positive I did and many know I did. The line could be retracted since it stated who told me, I don't know I haven't checked for it.

I totally disagree he would already be arrested if this purchase was made. Buying bleach, detergent or any item from HT only proves he is a liar.

Now if he bought nail clippers, lime green shoe laces, clorax wipes and a scrub brush...and she was found with lime green shoe laces, nails clipped back, scrubbed and cleaned. Then you might have an immediate arrest! IMO

So are you are saying that IF he lied about going to HT at 4 am and bought bleach and had scratches on his arm he wouldn't be arrested all ready?

[raisincharlie]

My point here is that he felt compelled to defend himself, admissible or not. I would think it would be EXTREMELY difficult to see my name dragged through the mud (even if it were on a message board) and not defend myself. That's all I'm saying.

Wait! There's more!

...to me he looks less guilty by wanting to obtain this info...he's gotta be smart enough to know that they'll check ALL of the tapes, yes? I just gotta think that he wants to prove that he wasn't there at 4:00 (or 4:20 or whatever) buying BLEACH (oops now we're saying detergent).

Maybe I just want to believe him. I don't know why. But if he didn't do this....WOW...I can't even imagine what he's going through...

I understand what you are saying - I really do. And all I am saying is the receipts don't prove he did not murder his wife. The only thing which would prove that is if Brad proved Nancy was alive and went for a run. That is the only thing that would prove his innocence, instead he chose to defend an inadmissable point about himself and his whereabouts.

All he had to do was produce one affidavit from someone who saw Nancy running at a location away from the house and after 7 am - and for purposes of the custody hearing - all the speculation about his whereabouts is refuted and irrelevant.

And if he is innocent - he sure is going through he l l no doubt.

[raisincharlie]

Who would be in the chambers. I'm thinking Brad and his attorney in one room; NC's family & Alice Stubbs in another. Would the judge be there? Did they have a mediator? Would LE be present or involved in any way? Something or someone change BC's mind in 90 minutes about persuing child custody...at least for the present. What was it and who delivered the information?

I was not there but from what I have been told - the judge gave them his chambers to hash it out. Brad & attorney, plaintiffs and attorney. LE would not be there - civil matter. I do not take it the judge was even present.

[Just the Fax]

I think since he wore long sleeves it was speculation he had scratches. Maybe someone knows or saw something we didn't. I don't know and I don't know who posted it.

After my original post I came back on shortly after and stated it was not bleach and clarified it. I am positive I did and many know I did. The line could be retracted since it stated who told me, I don't know I haven't checked for it.

I totally disagree he would already be arrested if this purchase was made. Buying bleach, detergent or any item from HT only proves he is a liar.

Now if he bought nail clippers, lime green shoe laces, clorax wipes and a scrub brush...and she was found with lime green shoe laces, nails clipped back, scrubbed and cleaned. Then you might have an immediate arrest! IMO


Presumably, he told the cops the same time-line he published in his civil affidavit. If he was at the HT at 4:20 am buying anything and lied to the cops about that fact, it will play a huge part in the CE case the cops are apparently building. There is no logical explanation for the trip and it will be up to the jury to decide if the trip involved something sinister.

[reddress58]

I was not there but from what I have been told - the judge gave them his chambers to hash it out. Brad & attorney, plaintiffs and attorney. LE would not be there - civil matter. I do not take it the judge was even present.
I'm guessing his attorneys had decided ahead of time the outcome of the hearing just to keep him off the stand. Maybe they realized after the fact that the defensive affidavit & rebuttal backfired.

[raisincharlie]

So are you are saying that IF he lied about going to HT at 4 am and bought bleach and had scratches on his arm he wouldn't be arrested all ready?

Does going to a store at 4 am and lying about it prove he murdered his wife ?

Do scratches on his arm prove he murdered his wife ?

If both are true does it prove he murdered his wife ?

No DA is going to approve an arrest warrant on this alone. No he would not already be arrested because of one or both of these.

[raisincharlie]

I'm guessing his attorneys had decided ahead of time the outcome of the hearing just to keep him off the stand. Maybe they realized after the fact that the defensive affidavit & rebuttal backfired.

No way Blum wanted Brad on the stand - he would have to answer questions about anything presented in the affidavits, including questions as to if he murdered his wife.

[Just the Fax]

I was not there but from what I have been told - the judge gave them his chambers to hash it out. Brad & attorney, plaintiffs and attorney. LE would not be there - civil matter. I do not take it the judge was even present.

Her honor was in the courtroom on the 8th floor while the parties were meeting on the 4th floor.

[reddress58]

Presumably, he told the cops the same time line he published in his civil affidavit. If he was at the HT at 4:20 am buying anything and lied to the cops about that fact, it will play a huge part in the CE case the cops are apparently building. There is no logical explanation for the trip and it will be up to the jury to decide if the trip involved something sinister.
When did he tell the cops his timeline? Before or after NC was found. Because he told a talk show host she went running between 6:30 & 7:00, which was aired before she was found. That time frame does not match what he told the cops

[raisincharlie]

Her honor was in the courtroom on the 8th floor while the parties were meeting on the 4th floor.

Her chambers ? Forgot it was a lady :)

[Just the Fax]

When did he tell the cops his timeline? Before or after NC was found. Because he told a talk show host she went running between 6:30 & 7:00, which was aired before she was found. That time frame does not match what he told the cops

I have no idea, but it was said he cooperated fully with the CPD. If I'm a cop, his whereabouts since 12 am would be the first question I would ask.

[momto3kids]

So are you are saying that IF he lied about going to HT at 4 am and bought bleach and had scratches on his arm he wouldn't be arrested all ready?

You are missing what I just said....I retracted the BLEACH right after my initial post. Period.
Scratches were not noted by me..never have I said I saw them or knew of them. Someone on here mentioned it, but not me. Period

IMO that still doesn't warrant an arrest for murder unless NC had DNA under her nails and it has come back to confirm it was BC and he has the scratches that many are wondering about.

[Just the Fax]

Her chambers ? Forgot it was a lady :)

It was unclear which judges chambers were used.
I took from the report at the Court house that day that they used judges chambers simply to insure privacy....there was a major swarm of media all over the CH.

[reddress58]

You are missing what I just said....I retracted the BLEACH right after my initial post. Period.
Scratches were not noted by me..never have I said I saw them or knew of them. Someone on here mentioned it, but not me. Period

IMO that still doesn't warrant an arrest for murder unless NC had DNA under her nails and it has come back to confirm it was BC and he has the scratches that many are wondering about.
Mto3,

Did your source see or hear of other store videos supporting either of the 6:15 & 6:45 runs.

[raisincharlie]

It was unclear which judges chambers were used.
I took from the report at the Court house that day that they used judges chambers simply to insure privacy....there was a major swarm of media all over the CH.

I watched some vids on WRAL - swarm of media is right. Followed both groups down the street to the courthouse - holy cow!

[Just the Fax]

I watched some vids on WRAL - swarm of media is right. Followed both groups down the street to the courthouse - holy cow!


Judge Stephenson walked out of the DA's office on the 8th floor in front of the 10-12 news photographers with their video cameras aimed at the elevator doors. He smiled and said "having fun guys" ? One answered, "yep, this is what we do"

I swear they looked liked paparazzi for the tabloids.

[raisincharlie]

Judge Stephenson walked out of the DA's office on the 8th floor in front of the 10-12 news photographers with their video cameras aimed at the elevator doors. He smiled and said "having fun guys" ? One answered, "yep, this is what we do"

I swear they looked liked paparazzi for the tabloids.

Maybe Brittney was there somewhere :crazy:

[momto3kids]

Mto3,

Did your source see or hear of other store videos supporting either of the 6:15 & 6:45 runs.

NO, they were not shown or asked about other times or purchases. I did think to ask that. My conversation was brief...more in passing mode.

[FlowerChild]

I am really skinny - zero body fat - I am ALWAYS cold in AC, I wear a jacket or long sleeve shirt at HOME when it's 107 outside because of the AC and I wear a jacket in the car and ALWAYS when shopping. Every store I go into seems to have the AC set at "meat locker" in the summer. My husband is the same way - although he is a bit warmer natured than I am, AC always makes him feel chilled - especially when it's humid out and he is wearing a T-shirt that feels "damp" when he comes in from outdoors. My husband NEVER wears shorts to shop (they are for exercise only) and ALWAYS puts on a clean shirt and a ball-cap to go on early morning "errands" before he showers because he doesn't want to LOOK like he just got out of bed (which he did) and he prefers to at least look "neat". Hubby feels a hat makes him look "presentable" even if he has been exercising or his hair is a mess - he has certain ones he wears when he walks for exercise or puts on after exercising at the gym too.

As to long sleeves outside in summer - I have an Uncle who is very thin and fit like BC - he spent his life wearing a thick cotton long-sleeved work shirt outdoors in the HOTTEST temps - he is used to it. I wear long sleeves and pants outside (and sometimes a hat) in 105 temps because I don't want to spend 5 minutes slathering my body with suncreen for a 20 minute stint outdoors. Plus I can't use repellant (have a pond ) and I don't want the mosquitos to eat me up. Hubby wears long sleeved oxford shirts with slacks as casual business attire all summer - he would certainly wear a nice oxford shirt and maybe even a sport coat if he was going to be on TV. BTW, this sort of stuff is covered in PR manuals - it is considered appropriate professional attire for men and women to cover one's arms when appearing on TV in a formal setting, such as a press conference or interview. BC would know this and so would his attorneys.

While there are many things I would like to investigate further, I don't find BC's attire or his wearing (or not wearing) a ring suspicious in any way. I don't find it odd, or a sign that he is hiding something. Since the police spoke with him I am sure they checked him out for scratches and bruises the 1st day, they seem quite thorough.

In short, the clothing/ring issue isn't bringing up any added suspicion on my part. Since we don't know BC's usual "norms" it is very hard to say if what he is wearing at ANY point is unusual. My husband does NOT wear his wedding ring except in formal photos and job interviews but he would certainly wear his if I was missing or murdered and he was going to appear on TV. Mr FC has a beautiful ring and we had a double ring ceremony - but he doesn't care to wear jewelry of ANY kind - he wears a watch and that's it. It has no bearing on the state of our (very solid 15 year) marriage - a ring is just a symbol and I don't need that - it sure doesn't keep a man from straying, it isn't like it's permanently attached to his finger. I only wear my rings if I am going out - I sure don't wear them to clean, cook, garden, swim or exercise. Point being, everyone is different - we can only judge someones behavior or attire as suspicious if we know it differs from their individual "normal".

My Opinion

[raisincharlie]

Anyone care to discuss:

All Brad had to do was produce one affidavit from someone who saw Nancy running at a location away from the house and after 7 am - and for purposes of the custody hearing - all the speculation about his whereabouts prior to 7am is proved to be irrelevant.


We do know from the press conferences on 14 July, Chief Bazemore indicates that no had come forward with a sighting of Nancy on the morning she went missing to that date - the 14th.

[SleuthyGal]

IMO that still doesn't warrant an arrest for murder unless NC had DNA under her nails and it has come back to confirm it was BC and he has the scratches that many are wondering about.

Exactly! The DA has ONE opportunity to take a case to trial and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Store visits are not enough to arrest. Scratches are not enough to arrest, in and of themselves. They have to have what they feel is ENOUGH circumstantial evidence (along with any physical evidence if such a thing exists) to make their case. They are in fact-finding mode. They are probably building a case but don't think they have enough yet. And as we've been reminded many times, the forensic DNA test results are not completed yet. And that can take weeks, even months, depending.

[d99gr81]

You are missing what I just said....I retracted the BLEACH right after my initial post. Period.
Scratches were not noted by me..never have I said I saw them or knew of them. Someone on here mentioned it, but not me. Period

IMO that still doesn't warrant an arrest for murder unless NC had DNA under her nails and it has come back to confirm it was BC and he has the scratches that many are wondering about.

Hun, I am not directing anyone one statement to anyone in particular. No worries. I am just pointing out that there has been plenty of wild theories and what not and if any of them were really true they would have arrested him. Point is we have NO facts yet. So until we do I just find it impossible to say one way or the other if he did. I am just trying to offer a view opposite of many on here. Not saying he did or didn't do anything. I really think they may have some sort of evidence that indicates the possibility of it being someone else.

[SleuthyGal]

And I also agree with the point that all this extracting of store receipts is a moot point IF someone/anyone saw NC running that morning. But so far no one has seen her or said they saw her that day, outside of her husband. So now hub is trying to show what he did (to a point of course), what he purchased, and (I believe) is trying to see what 'info' HT has about him, his visits, and what he purchased, when and where.

[Just the Fax]

Anyone care to discuss:

All Brad had to do was produce one affidavit from someone who saw Nancy running at a location away from the house and after 7 am - and for purposes of the custody hearing - all the speculation about his whereabouts prior to 7am is proved to be irrelevant.


We do know from the press conferences on 14 July, Chief Bazemore indicates that no had come forward with a sighting of Nancy on the morning she went missing to that date - the 14th.

I'm sure it was discussed, but if she told Brad she was running with Carrie, what did Carrie say ? If she had no idea, why would Nancy say she was running with her ? Another piece that smells to high heaven

[FullDisclosure]

Anyone care to discuss:

All Brad had to do was produce one affidavit from someone who saw Nancy running at a location away from the house and after 7 am - and for purposes of the custody hearing - all the speculation about his whereabouts prior to 7am is proved to be irrelevant.


We do know from the press conferences on 14 July, Chief Bazemore indicates that no had come forward with a sighting of Nancy on the morning she went missing to that date - the 14th.

Unfortunately, for Brad, this hasn't happened. But does the fact that no one reported seeing her make him guilty of murder? I think the burden of proof is on the state, not Brad. Oh, wait....he hasn't been charged.

I am, like everyone here I presume, really curious to know what the search warrants, autopsy, and forensic evidence will show (as well as any videotape from the HT purchases). Until we have something there, however, I'll withhold judgement.

[Star12]

Anyone care to discuss:

All Brad had to do was produce one affidavit from someone who saw Nancy running at a location away from the house and after 7 am - and for purposes of the custody hearing - all the speculation about his whereabouts prior to 7am is proved to be irrelevant.


We do know from the press conferences on 14 July, Chief Bazemore indicates that no had come forward with a sighting of Nancy on the morning she went missing to that date - the 14th.

And at 5'9" and as thin as she was, someone would have seen her. All the media attention, all the flyers posted in the stores - I first became aware of the situation from a yellow flyer posted on the door at Whole Foods - and the later stopping of traffic and passing-out of more flyers the next two Saturdays, no one has come forward.

[Just the Fax]

Exactly! The DA has ONE opportunity to take a case to trial and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Store visits are not enough to arrest. Scratches are not enough to arrest, in and of themselves. They have to have what they feel is ENOUGH circumstantial evidence (along with any physical evidence if such a thing exists) to make their case. They are in fact-finding mode. They are probably building a case but don't think they have enough yet. And as we've been reminded many times, the forensic DNA test results are not completed yet. And that can take weeks, even months, depending.

CE can be compelling and many times results in convictions.
The DA does not need DNA to indict and take to trial.
But....you never know in Wake County. Look at Jason Young. The case is obviously loaded with circumstantial evidence and he still walks a free man 20 months later.

[CyberPro]

I actually think they were attacking the person who posted on a different thread about the retention pond or as I call it silt basin. They made sure to let us know they were an 'environmental engineer'.:boohoo:

This person has jumped around to other cases before NC so I don't think it is BC...just a person looking start problems. :loser:

Environmental Engineer?

Isn't that what they are calling "Ditch Diggers" these days??

Just Curious? :)

CyberPro

[raisincharlie]

Unfortunately, for Brad, this hasn't happened. But does the fact that no one reported seeing her make him guilty of murder? I think the burden of proof is on the state, not Brad. Oh, wait....he hasn't been charged.

I am, like everyone here I presume, really curious to know what the search warrants, autopsy, and forensic evidence will show (as well as any videotape from the HT purchases). Until we have something there, however, I'll withhold judgement.

Sorry - quess I didn't make that clear - regarding ALL speculation concerning trips to the store irregardless of time is this all it would have taken for Brad to put to rest all that speculation ?

Just dealing with the custody case since that is what his defense affidavits are applied to.

With respect to her murder - it proves he was the last to see her but it does not prove he murdered her by any means.

[Just the Fax]

Environmental Engineer?

Isn't that what they are calling "Ditch Diggers" these days??

Just Curious? :)

CyberPro


I hear trolls often can be found in ditches.:)

[FullDisclosure]

And at 5'9" and as thin as she was, someone would have seen her. All the media attention, all the flyers posted in the stores - I first became aware of the situation from a yellow flyer posted on the door at Whole Foods - and the later stopping of traffic and passing-out of more flyers the next two Saturdays, no one has come forward.

Not if, and this is only one theory, she walked to her car with her purse to go to Java Jive to begin her run, and she was abducted at gunpoint or knifepoint (and yes, unseen by neighbors when this happened very quickly) by someone who took her to the location where she was found and killed her. (Far fetched, yes.....but no more so than many theories posted here. I'm not even saying that's what I think happened...just trying to illustrate my point about burden of proof and waiting for some EVIDENCE before passing judgement).

[raisincharlie]

I'm sure it was discussed, but if she told Brad she was running with Carrie, what did Carrie say ? If she had no idea, why would Nancy say she was running with her ? Another piece that smells to high heaven


Now - Carrie would be the perfect person to supply such an affidavit wouldn't she.

But we also know from Clea M via a tv interview that she spoke to Carrie and according to Carrie - they had no plans to run that morning.

Does Carrie not remind you of another person - SS ? Silence, hidden, nothing to say ?

[SleuthyGal]

CE can be compelling and many times results in convictions.
The DA does not need DNA to indict and take to trial.

Yes. In fact, everything that is not direct evidence (like a witness to the actual murder or a video of the actual murder) is 'circumstantial' by definition. Fingerprints, footprints, blood splatter, saliva, actions of the perp...all of that is 'circumstantial' too. CE can actually be more powerful in totality than some eyewitness testimony because the evidence doesn't lie or get confused or ever have an agenda. It's just sitting there, waiting to be discovered, measured, quantified and interpreted.

[reddress58]

Now - Carrie would be the perfect person to supply such an affidavit wouldn't she.

But we also know from Clea M via a tv interview that she spoke to Carrie and according to Carrie - they had no plans to run that morning.

Does Carrie not remind you of another person - SS ? Silence, hidden, nothing to say ?
Whom do you refer to, RC,,,for all us newbies?

[momto3kids]

Not if, and this is only one theory, she walked to her car with her purse to go to Java Jive to begin her run, and she was abducted at gunpoint or knifepoint (and yes, unseen by neighbors when this happened very quickly) by someone who took her to the location where she was found and killed her. (Far fetched, yes.....but no more so than many theories posted here. I'm not even saying that's what I think happened...just trying to illustrate my point about burden of proof and waiting for some EVIDENCE before passing judgement).

Possible, but her keys were on the counter which she needed to drive to Java Jive.

[Just the Fax]

Now - Carrie would be the perfect person to supply such an affidavit wouldn't she.

But we also know from Clea M via a tv interview that she spoke to Carrie and according to Carrie - they had no plans to run that morning.

Does Carrie not remind you of another person - SS ? Silence, hidden, nothing to say ?

Good point. Like SS, I'm sure she was sworn to secrecy with the threat of pain if she talks about this case to anyone.

Tells me both ladies will be key witnesses at both trials.

[KTaylorsc]

has anybody seen this?

http://www.athlinks.com/racer/18014460/Brad-Cooper.aspx

[reddress58]

Good point. Like SS, I'm sure she was sworn to secrecy with the threat of pain if she talks about this case to anyone.

Tells me both ladies will be key witnesses at both trials.
Who swor Carey her to secrecy? Who is SS?

[raisincharlie]

Whom do you refer to, RC,,,for all us newbies?

Carrie - I'm sure you know the connection.

The SS question was aimed to Just the Fax ,but SS is the last person reported to have seen Michelle Young alive. The woman vanished from the face of the planet after the murder. Not saying she killed Michelle just that LE pretty much hid her away - the same as Carrie is pretty much hiding and saying nothing for public consumption anyhow.

[momto3kids]

Now - Carrie would be the perfect person to supply such an affidavit wouldn't she.

But we also know from Clea M via a tv interview that she spoke to Carrie and according to Carrie - they had no plans to run that morning.

Does Carrie not remind you of another person - SS ? Silence, hidden, nothing to say ?
Yep..Carrie, Theresa, and Diana Duncan's husband. 3 affadavits missing at this point.

[Just the Fax]

has anybody seen this?

http://www.athlinks.com/racer/18014460/Brad-Cooper.aspx

Again, all about Brad.:rolleyes:

[raisincharlie]

Yep..Carrie, Theresa, and Diana Duncan's husband. 3 affadavits missing at this point.

Hmmmm...:)

[FullDisclosure]

Now - Carrie would be the perfect person to supply such an affidavit wouldn't she.

But we also know from Clea M via a tv interview that she spoke to Carrie and according to Carrie - they had no plans to run that morning.

Does Carrie not remind you of another person - SS ? Silence, hidden, nothing to say ?

This fox news interview (and I do hope I linked correctly!) says so much, as far as I'm concerned. Note that Clea says NC had no plans to run with Carrie but that she DID say she planned to get a jog in in the morning. Also, when asked directly if she thinks NC's husband could be involved...note her answer. Also note her answer to the question about "marital problems."

Just very interesting, IMO....

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=2327108&referralPlaylistId=search|nancy%20cooper

[KTaylorsc]

Here's something on AMW website. Didn't know if anyone had see this either.

http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=57441

[FullDisclosure]

Carrie - I'm sure you know the connection.

The SS question was aimed to Just the Fax ,but SS is the last person reported to have seen Michelle Young alive. The woman vanished from the face of the planet after the murder. Not saying she killed Michelle just that LE pretty much hid her away - the same as Carrie is pretty much hiding and saying nothing for public consumption anyhow.

yep! It's making me CRAZY that we haven't heard from Carrie/Carey/however you spell it.!

[Just the Fax]

Now - Carrie would be the perfect person to supply such an affidavit wouldn't she.

But we also know from Clea M via a tv interview that she spoke to Carrie and according to Carrie - they had no plans to run that morning.



Wonder why he would tell Jessica at 9:25 am : "Nancy went for a run with Carrie Clarke and she would be back soon" :confused:

Why would he place a witness that he knew did not exist with her ?
It would have been much more believable if he said she went for a run alone.

[FullDisclosure]

Possible, but her keys were on the counter which she needed to drive to Java Jive.

I'm not saying I think that's how it happened (in case I wasn't clear before) but that there could be soooo many theories and that the burden is on the State. (And as for where the keys were--it often takes me about three trips to the car before I have everything ;) but maybe that's just me!)

[mollymalone]

For me it all comes back to one simple fact. Who was the last person to see
Nancy Cooper alive. BRAD. LE says there has been no one to come forward
to say they saw Nancy that morning. It's HIS word that Nancy left to go jogging.

Who had a MOTIVE?
If Nancy were dead Brad wouldn't have to give up any property, money
or the children. Also we don't know if there's any insurance involved as yet.

That she was dumped so close to home leads me to believe her killer
wanted her body found or was pressed for time ie.. driving to the store to
obtain specific items, leaving the children alone in the house.... and needed
a location close enough by to get rid of the body asap.

[raisincharlie]

[quote=raisincharlie;2453263]Now - Carrie would be the perfect person to supply such an affidavit wouldn't she.

But we also know from Clea M via a tv interview that she spoke to Carrie and according to Carrie - they had no plans to run that morning.

quote]

Wonder why he would tell Jessica at 9:25 am : "Nancy went for a run with Carrie Clarke and she would be back soon" :confused:

Why would he place a witness that he knew did not exist with her ?
It would have been much more believable if he said she went for a run alone.

Could be he simply got mixed up. I do believe I read somewhere, and maybe it is in JA's affidavit, that Carrie was to have run with Nancy either Friday or Thursday but canceled out. I'll go look.

[FullDisclosure]

[quote=Just the Fax;2453355]

Could be he simply got mixed up. I do believe I read somewhere, and maybe it is in JA's affidavit, that Carrie was to have run with Nancy either Friday or Thursday but canceled out. I'll go look.

Exactly!

[mollymalone]

Wonder why he would tell Jessica at 9:25 am : "Nancy went for a run with Carrie Clarke and she would be back soon" :confused:

Why would he place a witness that he knew did not exist with her ?
It would have been much more believable if he said she went for a run alone.For the same reason SPeterson claimed Laci went for a walk with the dog. Her purse was hanging in the closet and if I recall correctly, weren't her keys on the counter and her phone in the vehicle?

They concoct lies that they think will fly but when they don't they try to rework them to fit.

[Just the Fax]

[quote=Just the Fax;2453355]

Could be he simply got mixed up. I do believe I read somewhere, and maybe it is in JA's affidavit, that Carrie was to have run with Nancy either Friday or Thursday but canceled out. I'll go look.

Sounded like Brad was not upset that she was still out running at 9:25 when he had a firm tennis match set up at 9:30.

His natural response might have been
" Nancy knew I had a tennis match at 9:30. I can't imagine where she is...I agree with you, something is not right"

[reddress58]

[quote=Just the Fax;2453355]

Could be he simply got mixed up. I do believe I read somewhere, and maybe it is in JA's affidavit, that Carrie was to have run with Nancy either Friday or Thursday but canceled out. I'll go look.
It was Brad's affidavit.

[carolinalady]

Just trying to play catch up:

On the HT front, like I mentioned previously, I've been to the HT at Cameron Village numerous times and ONLY the UScan is open in the early morning hours.

On his possible attire during the shopping trips, I guess I look suspicious every time I go in there early morning to get milk (yes, it's a staple in our house and we occasionally run out in the evening and I must get it before the kids wake up). I often wear a jacket and a hat pulled down low. I'm usually dressed in my exercise gear and my husband often teases me about how low I wear my hat. I cannot stand to run w/ sunglasses on, so I wear the hat low. So, I'll go to HT to get the milk, drop stuff back at the house, and then leave immediately in said outfit to go run. If I get hot during the run, I tie the jacket around my waist.

On the wedding band, my husband doesn't sleep in his ring and only puts them on before he heads to work. So, if his hands are taped during his trips through the HT UScan, a wedding band would not be seen.

Back to the HT VIC purchases, he may want to check them out. After all, anyone who knows your phone number can get the stuff linked to your account. You don't have to have the card with you.

[Just the Fax]

[quote=raisincharlie;2453365]
It was Brad's affidavit.


Ahhh. He realized his mistake of planting Carrie as a witness when he talked to Jessica at 9:25 am.

Again, it will be very interesting to hear Carrie's story on the witness stand. There is a reason she has not been heard from .

[raisincharlie]

[quote=raisincharlie;2453365]
It was Brad's affidavit.

Yep - you are correct. Have a photographic memory do you :crazy:

It was indeed Brad who said Nancy was to have run with Carrie the previous day at 5:45 am and the run was canceled.

[raisincharlie]

Wow - what is going on with the quote function ? Its all messed up!

[carolinalady]

I still find it very interesting that Jessica said she did not know of Nancy's plans to run. She sounded certain she would know since they were training together. However, Clea Morwick did state that Nancy told her she was going to run on Saturday morning.

It will be interesting when/if we hear from Carrie/Carey.

[raisincharlie]

I still find it very interesting that Jessica said she did not know of Nancy's plans to run. She sounded certain she would know since they were training together. However, Clea Morwick did state that Nancy told her she was going to run on Saturday morning.

It will be interesting when/if we hear from Carrie/Carey.

I believe she said of Nancy's plans to run with Carrie on Saturday morning.

[Just the Fax]

I still find it very interesting that Jessica said she did not know of Nancy's plans to run. She sounded certain she would know since they were training together. However, Clea Morwick did state that Nancy told her she was going to run on Saturday morning.

It will be interesting when/if we hear from Carrie/Carey.

Clea Morwick stated that :confused:

[Tink56]

I agree that the last person to have Nancy is important, but yesterday I ran across a glitch in the Brad only concept when I discovered that Diana Duncan told someone that Bella had also seen her mother that morning.

Where did that information come from??? I don't know if Brad told Diana or Bella herself said she saw her Mommy in the morning.

I personally like the idea that Brad was at HT at 4:00, because, in my mind, that certainly slants the odds to Brad as the person with something to hide.

I don't know quite where to put the Bella information. But, it's out there, and probably should be considered. :confused::confused:

Here's a link to my earlier post with other links...
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2448995#post2448995



For me it all comes back to one simple fact. Who was the last person to see
Nancy Cooper alive. BRAD. LE says there has been no one to come forward
to say they saw Nancy that morning. It's HIS word that Nancy left to go jogging.

Who had a MOTIVE?
If Nancy were dead Brad wouldn't have to give up any property, money
or the children. Also we don't know if there's any insurance involved as yet.

That she was dumped so close to home leads me to believe her killer
wanted her body found or was pressed for time ie.. driving to the store to
obtain specific items, leaving the children alone in the house.... and needed
a location close enough by to get rid of the body asap.

[carolinalady]

Clea Morwick stated that :confused:

Yes, in a TV interview. I've posted the link before.

[raisincharlie]

Tinks

I also think that is very important - Bella seeing her Mom that morning. Problem is we just don't know where it came from - Brad or Bella herself. Don't know what to think about that right now.

[fran]

And I also agree with the point that all this extracting of store receipts is a moot point IF someone/anyone saw NC running that morning. But so far no one has seen her or said they saw her that day, outside of her husband. So now hub is trying to show what he did (to a point of course), what he purchased, and (I believe) is trying to see what 'info' HT has about him, his visits, and what he purchased, when and where.

IF he didn't have anything to hide, he wouldn't care what LE found, because he was INNOCENT. IMO, the FACT that he DID go to the grocery store to obtain copies of his receipts, says volumes. IMO, LE heard it, LOUD and clear!

That very first day of Nancy {missing}, LE's initial contact with the parties involved, EVERYTHING is noted. Every word. LE has a way of asking you the SAME question 10 different ways. Often times, you didn't even 'see' it was a question of something you'd already answered 4 or 5 times. Believe me, they play a hand-off game. One guy talks to you, you leave and get a drink of water, another guy engages you in conversation and you repeat .....or do you? :waitasec:

IF there's more than one person at the scene, LE has a way to unknowingly separate you. The person being questioned, often times doesn't even realize it was intentional. Oh, and that other officer sitting down making busy writing stuff down but within earshot of you, well..............he's not JUST concentrating on his writing material, ...................looking back you remembered when he slowly 1/2 turned towards your direction and well..........listened with one ear. ;)

IF you're telling the TRUTH, your story remains pretty much the same. IF you're confused on the times, you may even stop, look at the clock, and even state, 'I'm not really sure, I didn't think at the time I would NEED to remember exactly, it wasn't important.'

IMO, Brad's story was MOST likely TOO thought out. Too consistant. Too detailed. Although LE JUST WANTS THE FACTS!, a distressed person does NOT remember details, NOT minute facts, it just isn't the way an innocent person reacts in a stressful situation.

Brad returned to the store to SEE if the receipt was in HIS NAME. He just wasn't counting on the video. Sincerely, that IS going to be his downfall. Or the beginning of it. IMO, there already are, behind the scenes, contributing facts that will lead to, IMO, his eventual arrest of this crime.

Now Brad has to worry about all those lies he's told. Up to this point in his life, he's managed to skate around them because he was 'DA MAN.' But, it doesn't work that way in homicide cases. You can have your PHd here, IF you're lying, you get called on it! No 'grace period.'

No...........it's time to face 'karma.' You know what they say about that.:eek:

Next important date that we're aware of, Aug 11th isn't it? The clock is running.....:bang:

Just sayin'
IMHO
fran
;)

PS....LOL, ok, here's the comparison to the Peterson case coming.....IF Brad is eventually arrested and tried for this crime......expect the beginning of the trial to be BORING according to the TH's as the pros has one after the other after the other, of people that WERE out jogging that morning and did NOT see Nancy. oi vey, I could here it now. :rolleyes:





PPS.......Oh, one other thing BRAD, LE does NOT like LIARS. Just thought you might like to know that point. Ehhhh........but I GUESS it's a little late for that to be of much use to you, huh? :woohoo:

[Just the Fax]

Yes, in a TV interview. I've posted the link before.

Oh ok, I thought you meant the affidavit.
Do you happen to have the link or which station ?

[reddress58]

[quote=reddress58;2453396]

Yep - you are correct. Have a photographic memory do you :crazy:

It was indeed Brad who said Nancy was to have run with Carrie the previous day at 5:45 am and the run was canceled.
I've read them 3 times.

[KTaylorsc]

Again, all about Brad.:rolleyes:

well jeez sorry...I haven't been able to find any such things by Nancy.

[jonesmouse]

I have a question maybe you can study on the answer. You reference the cameras at the self checkouts, do you think it is possible that those cameras would show a person's hand in the frame as they were placing the items on the scale / scanner ?


I've got some catching up to do when I get out of work... I'm just taking a break now.

But to answer you RC, I believe these cameras pointed at the scanner would pick up hands. I know that they're mainly used so that the person manning the checkout stations can watch to be sure they're not trying to steal anything and to make sure they're punching in the correct items (like when you have to weigh produce). But whether or not they record is another story. I'm not sure how to find that out. I would assume they do in case the store needs to dispute an incident.

I had that same thought about the wedding ring or any other identifying marks just on his hands alone.

[FullDisclosure]

Clea Morwick stated that :confused:

Here it is, JTF....you should watch, as should everyone. Lots of interesting tidbits...

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?
playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=2327108&referralPlaylistId=search|nancy%20cooper[/QUOTE]

[carolinalady]

Oh ok, I thought you meant the affidavit.
Do you happen to have the link or which station ?

FoxNews.

ETA: Thanks FullDisclosure for posting the direct link!

[mollymalone]

I agree that the last person to have Nancy is important, but yesterday I ran across a glitch in the Brad only concept when I discovered that Diana Duncan told someone that Bella had also seen her mother that morning.

Where did that information come from??? I don't know if Brad told Diana or Bella herself said she saw her Mommy in the morning.

I personally like the idea that Brad was at HT at 4:00, because, in my mind, that certainly slants the odds to Brad as the person with something to hide.

I don't know quite where to put the Bella information. But, it's out there, and probably should be considered. :confused::confused:

Here's a link to my earlier post with other links...
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2448995#post2448995Ah, but what TIME did Bella see Mommy? Did she or Brad tell Diana that?

And, what was the actual time of death according to the coroner?

Brad says she left at 7 in the a.m. Did Bella see Mommy then? or earlier? How much earlier? If Mom's time of death is pinpointed to a time that gives the lie to Brad's 7 am time.... we'll see. Questions we won't know the answers to until we get more information.

[Just the Fax]

well jeez sorry...I haven't been able to find any such things by Nancy.


Well, by all accounts she was not a selfish, narcissistic loner that needed personal web pages to brag about her personal accomplishments.

[KTaylorsc]

Well, by all accounts she was not a selfish, narcissistic loner that needed personal web pages to brag about her personal accomplishments.

well I would say that I won't post anything ever again but that would just make everybody happy...

[d99gr81]

Possible, but her keys were on the counter which she needed to drive to Java Jive.

OK where did you hear the "Keys were on the counter" ? Post a link please

[MoonFlwr]

well I would say that I won't post anything ever again but that would just make everybody happy...

Ahh, don't be put off by 1 or 2 people!

[FlowerChild]

What if Nancy DID tell BC she was going to run with Carrie and had no intention of running with her? Wives in the midst of a difficult divorce sometimes mislead husbands to protect their interests. Maybe Nancy told Carrie to lie to Brad (or anyone else) and say they were running if asked? Maybe Nancy was instead going out to make arrangements of some sort relating to her divorce, her and the girls moving out or her and the girls going to Canada and thought running with Carrie was the perfect "cover" to get her out of the house away from Brad and the girls for 2 or 3 hours without arousing suspicion?

Or maybe Nancy just wanted to run alone and told Brad she was going with Carrie just to put him off?

Maybe Carrie had covered for Nancy's absences before - perhaps it was a "plan" that she and Nancy had and nobody knew about it (including Nancy's other friends). Maybe Carrie called the evening before and talked to Brad and he KNEW Nancy was NOT going to run with Carrie the next morning and yet Nancy kept saying she was? Maybe BC found out Nancy had been hiding something from him and was continuing to lie to him by saying she was going running with Carrie when she wasn't and that set him off and he confronted Nancy?

My Opinion

[FullDisclosure]

OK where did you hear the "Keys were on the counter" ? Post a link please


I wondered that as well, but my theory was just to illustrate my point, so I let it go :)

Is there a link, Mom?

[FullDisclosure]

Here it is, JTF....you should watch, as should everyone. Lots of interesting tidbits...

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?
playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=2327108&referralPlaylistId=search|nancy%20cooper[/QUOTE]


So, JTF, did you get a chance to watch? Thoughts? Anyone? Anyone??

[reddress58]

What if Nancy DID tell BC she was going to run with Carrie and had no intention of running with her? Wives in the midst of a difficult divorce sometimes mislead husbands to protect their interests. Maybe Nancy told Carrie to lie to Brad (or anyone else) and say they were running if asked? Maybe Nancy was instead going out to make arrangements of some sort relating to her divorce, her and the girls moving out or her and the girls going to Canada and thought running with Carrie was the perfect "cover" to get her out of the house away from Brad and the girls for 2 or 3 hours without arousing suspicion?

Or maybe Nancy just wanted to run alone and told Brad she was going with Carrie just to put him off?

Maybe Carrie had covered for Nancy's absences before - perhaps it was a "plan" that she and Nancy had and nobody knew about it (including Nancy's other friends). Maybe Carrie called the evening before and talked to Brad and he KNEW Nancy was NOT going to run with Carrie the next morning and yet Nancy kept saying she was? Maybe BC found out Nancy had been hiding something from him and was continuing to lie to him by saying she was going running with Carrie when she wasn't and that set him off and he confronted Nancy?

My Opinion
Then how do you explain her plans to paint at jessica's at 8?

[d99gr81]

This fox news interview (and I do hope I linked correctly!) says so much, as far as I'm concerned. Note that Clea says NC had no plans to run with Carrie but that she DID say she planned to get a jog in in the morning. Also, when asked directly if she thinks NC's husband could be involved...note her answer. Also note her answer to the question about "marital problems."

Just very interesting, IMO....

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=2327108&referralPlaylistId=search|nancy%20cooper

She also said she did not "think" Brad had anything to do with it.

[Just the Fax]

Here it is, JTF....you should watch, as should everyone. Lots of interesting tidbits...

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?
playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=2327108&referralPlaylistId=search|nancy%20cooper (http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=2327108&referralPlaylistId=search|nancy%20cooper)

Interestingly comments On Tuesday am before the body was found and classed as a murder.

1- She said "We found out after the fact they had not planned on running that day"

2- "She mentioned the night before she was going to get a jog in the morning and that's what we expect happened"


Who did Nancy mention this to the night before ?
Unless it was direct to Clea, I question the accuracy of the statement.

Clea sure changed her tune about Brad on 7-23-08.......

[raisincharlie]

So, JTF, did you get a chance to watch? Thoughts? Anyone? Anyone??[/quote]


I didn't hear any revelations other than her saying Absolutely Not to any possiblity that Nancy may have been meeting up with someone.

She confirmed that Nancy and Carrie had no plans to run that day per her conversation with Carrie and that Nancy did confirm the night before she was going running the next morning.

She confirmed Nancy was the type that would show up.

[d99gr81]

Wonder why he would tell Jessica at 9:25 am : "Nancy went for a run with Carrie Clarke and she would be back soon" :confused:

Why would he place a witness that he knew did not exist with her ?
It would have been much more believable if he said she went for a run alone.

Maybe she lied and said she was running with her.

[raisincharlie]

<snip>

Clea sure changed her tune about Brad on 7-23-08.......

Kind of what I thought as well.

[Just the Fax]

Maybe she lied and said she was running with her.


Now what good reason would she have to tell him that lie ?

[FlowerChild]

Then how do you explain her plans to paint at jessica's at 8?
She thought she'd be done with "whatever" in an hour? Maybe she did plan on going for a quick run that AM ALONE - before Brad confronted her about the whole "lie" that she was going with Carrie? Maybe there was no "run" and Brad just confronted her about PREVIOUS "runs" with Carrie that weren't "runs" at all. Maybe Brad even thought ALL her friends were "in" on the plan to deceive him? Maybe when Nancy said she had to go paint at Jessica's that morning Brad thought it was another "lie"?

I know that BOTH SIDES in these difficult divorces with kids do things in secret to prepare for the inevitable battles about support, custody etc. Nancy seems smart and therefore I would not put it past her to conspire with all or some of her friends to deceive Brad about her preparations. She had a significant amount of cash in her purse, right? What if she was preparing to "run" or at least leave Brad the following Monday while Brad was at work? If he found out, he might have gone right over the edge. Nancy's friends sure seemed on edge and uncommonly concerned about her welfare - why? MAYBE because they KNEW she was preparing to leave Brad and things might get bad if he found out?

My Opinion

[MoonFlwr]

Now what good reason would she have to tell him that lie ?

Playing devil's advocate, there could be any number of reasons to lie about jogging with someone.

Their marriage was in disarray.

[d99gr81]

Well, by all accounts she was not a selfish, narcissistic loner that needed personal web pages to brag about her personal accomplishments.

What are your accounts? Not only do you know nothing of who they REALLY were... you go by what her family and friends have said about him... so I will add some others that have said this about NC.

She has a 1200 dollar purse... 200 dollar jeans...8000 dollar paintings.... 200 pedicures. BMW x5... sure looks like showing off to me as well. Please to say because he had some web pages where he blogs or documents his accomplishments is NOTHING many others don't do.

[d99gr81]

Now what good reason would she have to tell him that lie ?

Seriously???? OK to be gentle you are one of a few with serious tunnel vision.... UM she could be having an affair..again... My ex told me she was going to the counselor alone to fix her problems that he made us aware of in our sessions ...only to find out she was seeing a lawyer and stealing my money...please if you get out of the tunnel and see out side the box ...just once...ahhh never mind its never ending.

[Just the Fax]

Playing devil's advocate, there could be any number of reasons to lie about jogging with someone.

Their marriage was in disarray.

Yea, maybe if she was meeting a boyfriend .
Go back and listen to Clea...she totally discounted that possibility when asked by Fox News.

You either believe Clea or you don't...can't have it both ways

[d99gr81]

She thought she'd be done with "whatever" in an hour? Maybe she did plan on going for a quick run that AM ALONE - before Brad confronted her about the whole "lie" that she was going with Carrie? Maybe there was no "run" and Brad just confronted her about PREVIOUS "runs" with Carrie that weren't "runs" at all. Maybe Brad even thought ALL her friends were "in" on the plan to deceive him? Maybe when Nancy said she had to go paint at Jessica's that morning Brad thought it was another "lie"?

I know that BOTH SIDES in these difficult divorces with kids do things in secret to prepare for the inevitable battles about support, custody etc. Nancy seems smart and therefore I would not put it past her to conspire with all or some of her friends to deceive Brad about her preparations. She had a significant amount of cash in her purse, right? What if she was preparing to "run" or at least leave Brad the following Monday while Brad was at work? If he found out, he might have gone right over the edge. Nancy's friends sure seemed on edge and uncommonly concerned about her welfare - why? MAYBE because they KNEW she was preparing to leave Brad and things might get bad if he found out?

My Opinion


I just posted to this point as well. Glad I am not the only one.

[Just the Fax]

What are your accounts? Not only do you know nothing of who they REALLY were... you go by what her family and friends have said about him... so I will add some others that have said this about NC.

She has a 1200 dollar purse... 200 dollar jeans...8000 dollar paintings.... 200 pedicures. BMW x5... sure looks like showing off to me as well. Please to say because he had some web pages where he blogs or documents his accomplishments is NOTHING many others don't do.


Well, I guess we are even then.
You don't know either one.
I tend to believe sworn affidavits over gossip and speculation.

[d99gr81]

Yea, maybe if she was meeting a boyfriend .
Go back and listen to Clea...she totally discounted that possibility when asked by Fox News.

OK I agree she said that...she also stated that she did not think Brad had anything to do with it... so how about that? You only pick and chose.

[MoonFlwr]

Seriously???? OK to be gentle you are one of a few with serious tunnel vision.... UM she could be having an affair..again... My ex told me she was going to the counselor alone to fix her problems that he made us aware of in our sessions ...only to find out she was seeing a lawyer and stealing my money...please if you get out of the tunnel and see out side the box ...just once...ahhh never mind its never ending.

lol! your 'Seriously????' expressed what I thought when I saw the question, too!
You said it better than me!

[raisincharlie]

What are your accounts? Not only do you know nothing of who they REALLY were... you go by what her family and friends have said about him... so I will add some others that have said this about NC.

She has a 1200 dollar purse... 200 dollar jeans...8000 dollar paintings.... 200 pedicures. BMW x5... sure looks like showing off to me as well. Please to say because he had some web pages where he blogs or documents his accomplishments is NOTHING many others don't do.

You still have never provided that link I asked for a long time ago about verifying that $1200 purse. I think you are confused - she bought Brad a $1200 dollar laptop case, which he wanted returned - even he admits that and with all his whinning I feel certain he would have whinned about a $1200 purse - which he did not do in his affidavit.

[d99gr81]

Well, I guess we are even then.
You don't know either one.
I tend to believe sworn affidavits over gossip and speculation.

They were all sworn... lol

[Just the Fax]

OK I agree she said that...she also stated that she did not think Brad had anything to do with it... so how about that? You only pick and chose.

Go ask her now and see what she says :)

She was on National TV and her body had not even been identified.
This was still a missing persons case.

[d99gr81]

anyways off work and I have had enough for today... check back tomorrow...Good night

[Just the Fax]

They were all sworn... lol



Your point was questioning what her friends said about Brad.
There were none by Nancy's family....all her close friends that Nancy confided in.

Brad's buds were his immediate family and a few guys he worked with at Cisco. They all said Brad was very private and to himself. Heck , he never even told his parents they were separating

Again, I chose to believe Nancy's friends as far as knowing the insides of the marriage.

[d99gr81]

Your point was questioning what her friends said about Brad.
There were none by Nancy's family....all her close friends that Nancy confided in.

Brad's buds were his immediate family and a few guys he worked with at Cisco. They all said Brad was very private and to himself. Heck , he never even told his parents they were separating

Again, I chose to believe Nancy's friends as far as knowing the insides of the marriage.

Right because no one like NC would ever exaggerate her problems... beenthrough it first hand but what ever . again no hard feelings i'm out of here.

[FullDisclosure]

So, JTF, did you get a chance to watch? Thoughts? Anyone? Anyone??


I didn't hear any revelations other than her saying Absolutely Not to any possiblity that Nancy may have been meeting up with someone.

She confirmed that Nancy and Carrie had no plans to run that day per her conversation with Carrie and that Nancy did confirm the night before she was going running the next morning.

She confirmed Nancy was the type that would show up.[/QUOTE]

um....what about the part where she said there was absolutely no way Brad had anything to do with her disappearance? Did you hear that part??

I agree that Clea did change her tune July 23, but when asked point-blank that day--on nat'l TV--if she thought Nancy's husband was involved, she said "no." I just find that very interesting. That's all.

[Just the Fax]

What are your accounts? Not only do you know nothing of who they REALLY were... you go by what her family and friends have said about him... so I will add some others that have said this about NC.

She has a 1200 dollar pur