PDA

View Full Version : Nancy's Friends Object!



fran
09-11-2008, 12:53 PM
Wouldn't this be considered an invasion of privacy? After all, it's not the friends who are being called before the judge, it's the NOT suspect Bradley Cooper. It has to do with him being UNFIT to care for the two children. IMO, it would be HIS and NANCY's phone records and such that would be under question.

I think this is going too far.

What do you think?
fran

PS...I just posted this on the media thread...


http://www.newsobserver.com/2864/story/1214870.html

Friends asked to back up statements

Friends of Nancy Cooper have been asked to prove everything they have claimed about Nancy Cooper's troubled marriage to her husband Bradley.
According to court records, attorneys for Bradley Cooper have ordered his wife's friends to turn over their diaries, appointment books, phone records, pictures and anything else that might back up statements they made in affidavits filed after Nancy Cooper's death. Friends claimed that Bradley Cooper was emotionally unstable, unfaithful and had been very controlling and demeaning of his wife.

ncsu95
09-11-2008, 01:42 PM
Invasion of privacy? They gave up their privacy when they signed affidavits in this case concerning Brad Cooper. He's just saying "prove it". Guilty or not, I say good for him.

fran
09-11-2008, 01:50 PM
I disagree, but we'll see!

IMHO, the friend's personal diaries have NOTHING to do with Brad regaining custody of his children. It's NONE of his business. His attorney is just fishing.

JMHO
fran

ncsu95
09-11-2008, 02:05 PM
How can you say that? Her friends decided to get involved in the custody battle by signing affidavits about his character. How is that none of his business? Seriously...this part of it isn't even about the murder of Nancy Cooper. They decided to get involved in the custody battle, so they should have to prove the claims they made.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 02:07 PM
I disagree, but we'll see!

IMHO, the friend's personal diaries have NOTHING to do with Brad regaining custody of his children. It's NONE of his business. His attorney is just fishing.

JMHO
fran

Here comes the dog and pony show! :floorlaugh:

"diaries, appointment books, phone records, pictures" Appointment book...let's see a teacher's appointment, carpet being layed, GYN appointment. Pictures...child birth, family reunion.
Looks like it has a lot to do with NC and BC.:waitasec:

How much better does it get than 1st hand witnesses? I wonder why witnesses are so important in cases if seeing and observing it 1st hand is not good enough for cases much larger than this?:confused:

EntreNous
09-11-2008, 02:18 PM
They witness, first hand his demeaning behavior and now they have to bare their own private lives? Wrong-O! They didn't come forward to attest to their own lives, they came forward to share what they'd learned through NC about BC and through seeing BC's shenanigans with their own eyes. It's none of BC's business what they did when he and NC weren't around. This really takes the cake.

I'd fight that tooth and nail!

mahmoo
09-11-2008, 02:19 PM
Yep.....I think BC's attorney is trawling and, imo, I think this custody case is secondary and is being used as an excuse........he's trying to determine what facts he's going to be up against in a possible murder trial.

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 02:21 PM
A bunch of bluster & posturing on the defense side.

They're trying to throw roadblocks.

ncsu95
09-11-2008, 02:22 PM
Actually, most of the stuff in the affidavits was not witnessed first hand. Most was told based on what they heard from Nancy.

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 02:27 PM
That's true. I don't know how that will be used in court or if it can be. I'm not informed on the laws surrounding hearsay evidence and what constitutes it and what doesn't. But I'm sure someone here knows without my having to start a Google search.

However, there ARE some things that were witnessed first-hand and/or overheard directly by some of the affiants and those will come into play for sure.

mahmoo
09-11-2008, 02:29 PM
Actually, most of the stuff in the affidavits was not witnessed first hand. Most was told based on what they heard from Nancy.

Why would the statements even be recorded then if, in fact, there is no value in them legally? Obviously the judge found some merit in the affidavits.

fran
09-11-2008, 02:30 PM
Actually, most of the stuff in the affidavits was not witnessed first hand. Most was told based on what they heard from Nancy.

Then their personal diary has absolutely NOTHING to do with this!

What would their phone records prove? They talked to Nancy? So? Brad can subpoena his OWN phone records. That'll prove who Nancy talked to. It's none of their business who her friends talked to.

Pictures, maybe. On a limited basis ONLY. Like, parties to show BRAD was NOT there! ;)

Their personal calendars? Ehhh,.........NO!!!

"Personal" calendars are about the individual's life. NOT Nancy's.

Like everyone else said, they're 'fishing' for 'murder defense.'

Brad is trying to control these friend's lives like he controlled Nancy and he's trying to control his kids and Nancy's parents too!:mad:

JMHO
fran

ncnative
09-11-2008, 02:34 PM
Actually, most of the stuff in the affidavits was not witnessed first hand. Most was told based on what they heard from Nancy.

Well, Nancy's murder was not witnessed firsthand (except by the murderer), but much is told from "what they learned" from the autopsy.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 02:37 PM
Did BC take the psychiatric test and not do too well or is scared to? If his attorney's felt confident he has done NOTHING wrong they wouldn't need to go this far.

Actually what NC friends put on their affidavits...most of it BC admitted to some degree. Weekly allowance, vehicle, hours away from home, etc. Some have heard him yelling while on the phone or demanding NC to leave one place to go to another...how do you show this? 1st hand account IMO

fran
09-11-2008, 02:43 PM
Ah-Ha!

You just may have something there mom! ;)

LOL, he musta' flunked so now he's trying to get the friends to back off!:waitasec:

fran

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 02:45 PM
Did BC take the psychiatric test and not do too well or is scared to?

Interesting question! You think the lawyers had him take this test without being ordered to do so? Makes sense though so they could bring in their own findings, preemptively. Hmmmm.

fran
09-11-2008, 03:02 PM
Now I get it! Brad is making himself look worse and worse! :behindbar

He's trying to turn all the friends against each other and their families too!

What a POS!:furious:

JMHO
fran

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6384921

RALEIGH (WTVD) -- The husband of a murdered Cary woman is firing back, making new insinuations against his deceased wife and her friends, who are pointing the finger at him.

According to documents filed by Brad Wednesday and earlier this week, there are insinuations that Nancy Cooper also had an affair.
Eyewitness News obtained the documents Thursday.


Brad asks that Nancy's friends produce any evidence they may have of "any sexual or romantic relationship Nancy Cooper had with any person other than her husband, Bradley Cooper."
The filings also demand Jessica Adams, the friend who called 911 to report Nancy missing, produce evidence of "any romantic relationship with any person other than your spouse."
She is asked to do the same with any evidence of any affairs her husband might have had.

fran
09-11-2008, 03:08 PM
FWIW, I don't know where Brad got this attorney, but he needs to dump him ASAP! He's getting some pretty poor advice if you ask me!

First he trashes his murdered wife! Then he trashed his murdered wife's sister!
Now he's trying to trash all of Nancy's friends and tear their families apart.

Does he honestly think this tactic will work?!:eek:

IMHO, when a judge sees how low he will go to get his way, does he honestly think a judge would give him custody of two minor children who would not be able to speak up if they were being abused or worse?

OhMy,
fran

Brad..............You're controlling ways worked with Nancy, but NOT with her friends. Get it!?!

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 03:22 PM
The Rentz's didn't state much but did specifically state BC had attempted suicide as a teenager and threatened to commit suicide this year around Christmas time. IMO they know some facts. This could be their smoking gun. IMO he is grasping at straws because he knows they know. Why else would they ask for a psychiatric test?

This is one family I don't think would put it in writing if it wasn't the truth. K&B know they will be backed up against the wall with this one topic and are fishing for anything they can get to help BC.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/LuvClaysVoice2003/fishingparkinglot.jpg

Topsail Girl
09-11-2008, 03:25 PM
Haa even my MEDIA contact/buddy says Brad and his attornies are on a fishing expedition and did this because they knew it would make the media. Sone one needs to go knock on Brad's door and when he answers punch him right in the ole kisser. Sick Freak!!!

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 03:32 PM
Haa even my MEDIA contact/buddy says Brad and his attornies are on a fishing expedition and did this because they knew it would make the media. Sone one needs to go knock on Brad's door and when he answers punch him right in the ole kisser. Sick Freak!!!
Because he is miserable he wants everyone else.

Let's see if the media goes to his door for a statement and if he is a mouse and closes the door. Bet's on he will if this happens.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 03:33 PM
Will this be heard in open court on Oct 13th? Anyone know?

fran
09-11-2008, 03:34 PM
Haa even my MEDIA contact/buddy says Brad and his attornies are on a fishing expedition and did this because they knew it would make the media. Sone one needs to go knock on Brad's door and when he answers punch him right in the ole kisser. Sick Freak!!!

I'm glad to hear that Topsail Girl!

See, it's NOT just us that sees this as a bunch of BS!

What ticks me off is that Brad knows this is going to be available to the general public at large and he's trying to stir the pot of everyone of Nancy's friends families. It's disgusting.

It's just like the one friend of Nancy's who talked about Brad not allowing her son to play with their girls anymore, he put out there that the boy had been molested of some such thing. He knew that was going to be in the paper and everyone in town would know! He did it for his OWN gain at the expense of the reputation of a little child!:furious:

IMO, THAT's the type of person Brad Cooper is. I would NOT want to live next door to him, that's for sure!:sick:

He's sceery!:eek:

JMHO
fran

Tridavis
09-11-2008, 03:35 PM
I believe, like ncsu95 said, that when you make statements under oath, then you'd better be able to back them up......especially in a murder case. All these people came forward and trashed BC and now the attorneys are asking where the proof is to back it up. How about making all these gossips submit to a mental evaluation or better yet lie detector tests. I know, they are not allowed in court, but BC's attorneys are just trying to find out what the truth is. And if all these folks who came forward are telling the truth there should be no problem submitting to it. My opinion is that the gossip spread and then grew and spread some more....and now BC is Satan himself in this nieghborhood full of bored housewives.

fran
09-11-2008, 03:37 PM
Will this be heard in open court on Oct 13th? Anyone know?

The friends have already gotten attorneys. I don't think they're going to have to produce anything. He's trying to put this out to the public. His attorney knows this cra* isn't going to fly.:rolleyes:

JMHO
fran

fran
09-11-2008, 03:41 PM
I believe, like ncsu95 said, that when you make statements under oath, then you'd better be able to back them up......especially in a murder case. All these people came forward and trashed BC and now the attorneys are asking where the proof is to back it up. How about making all these gossips submit to a mental evaluation or better yet lie detector tests. I know, they are not allowed in court, but BC's attorneys are just trying to find out what the truth is. And if all these folks who came forward are telling the truth there should be no problem submitting to it. My opinion is that the gossip spread and then grew and spread some more....and now BC is Satan himself in this nieghborhood full of bored housewives.

I think they'll have enough first hand information to bring to court without laying their personal life open. This is NOT about the friends. This is about Brad and what a POS husband he was and an 'invisible' father.

FWIW, this tactic is only showing how everything her friends said about him is true. He'll stop at NOTHING to get his way. :bang:

It only reflects back on him.:boohoo:

JMHO
fran

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 03:44 PM
I believe, like ncsu95 said, that when you make statements under oath, then you'd better be able to back them up......especially in a murder case. All these people came forward and trashed BC and now the attorneys are asking where the proof is to back it up. How about making all these gossips submit to a mental evaluation or better yet lie detector tests. I know, they are not allowed in court, but BC's attorneys are just trying to find out what the truth is. And if all these folks who came forward are telling the truth there should be no problem submitting to it. My opinion is that the gossip spread and then grew and spread some more....and now BC is Satan himself in this nieghborhood full of bored housewives.


Please enlighten me to what NC friends "diaries, appointment books, phone records, pictures" are going to prove?
If it were me they were asking...
a) I have NO diary
b)my calendar is torn off at the end of the month and trashed...they can go to the landfill for it if they want it.
c) digital photo's are on my computer and I'm not going to print them for anyone or give my computer over
d) phone records are trashed once my bill is paid..back to the land fill they can go on their fishing trip

Topsail Girl
09-11-2008, 03:51 PM
I believe, like ncsu95 said, that when you make statements under oath, then you'd better be able to back them up......especially in a murder case. All these people came forward and trashed BC and now the attorneys are asking where the proof is to back it up. How about making all these gossips submit to a mental evaluation or better yet lie detector tests. I know, they are not allowed in court, but BC's attorneys are just trying to find out what the truth is. And if all these folks who came forward are telling the truth there should be no problem submitting to it. My opinion is that the gossip spread and then grew and spread some more....and now BC is Satan himself in this nieghborhood full of bored housewives.

Bored housewives? Maybe. Brad Cooper Satan himself - FOR SURE. HE MURDERED his WIFE!!!! He is trashing everything/everyone in his way to gain custody of his children even at the expense of other children. Yeah now that's a real man - for sure - uhh huh :rolleyes:

Topsail Girl
09-11-2008, 03:52 PM
I think they'll have enough first hand information to bring to court without laying their personal life open. This is NOT about the friends. This is about Brad and what a POS husband he was and an 'invisible' father.

FWIW, this tactic is only showing how everything her friends said about him is true. He'll stop at NOTHING to get his way. :bang:

It only reflects back on him.:boohoo:

JMHO
fran

Preach it SISTAH!!!:blowkiss:

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 03:52 PM
I believe, like ncsu95 said, that when you make statements under oath, then you'd better be able to back them up......especially in a murder case. All these people came forward and trashed BC and now the attorneys are asking where the proof is to back it up.

It's fine to ask for proof of submitted allegations, but it is outside the realm of the entire case to ask friends about their own relationships with their spouses or possible affairs or whatnot. It has no bearing on either the murder or the custody case. Does not help Brad to prove he is a 'fit' parent. It does NOTHING to further his case and he knows it and his attorneys know it too.

They (BC and his attorneys) are trying desperately to sully the friends and it's as transparent as cellophane. Nothing Brad can do can turn back time and undo the murder of his wife. NOTHING. Nothing can undo whatever it is that LE has uncovered and got in their possession. NOTHING. No amount of mud-slinging at Nancy or her friends can justify her murder. NOTHING.

raisincharlie
09-11-2008, 03:53 PM
yep.....i think bc's attorney is trawling and, imo, i think this custody case is secondary and is being used as an excuse........he's trying to determine what facts he's going to be up against in a possible murder trial.

bingo !

jmflu
09-11-2008, 03:56 PM
Probably trying to show "everyone else does it too" so he doesn't stand out as unfit in the marital realm.

It amazes me that anyone can still back this creep after he STILL pounds away at his dead wife. So much for sorrow, concern, grief, or a search for the killer.

GTH, BC.

Topsail Girl
09-11-2008, 03:57 PM
It's fine to ask for proof of submitted allegations, but it is outside the realm of the entire case to ask friends about their own relationships with their spouses or possible affairs or whatnot. It has no bearing on either the murder or the custody case. Does not help Brad to prove he is a 'fit' parent. It does NOTHING to further his case and he knows it and his attorneys know it too.

They (BC and his attorneys) are trying desperately to sully the friends and it's as transparent as cellophane. Nothing Brad can do can turn back time and undo the murder of his wife. NOTHING. Nothing can undo whatever it is that LE has uncovered and got in their possession. NOTHING. No amount of mud-slinging at Nancy or her friends can justify her murder. NOTHING.

Dang it another Preach it SISTAH!!!!! :blowkiss:

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 03:57 PM
Please enlighten me to what NC friends "diaries, appointment books, phone records, pictures" are going to prove?
If it were me they were asking...
a) I have NO diary
b)my calendar is torn off at the end of the month and trashed...they can go to the landfill for it if they want it.
c) digital photo's are on my computer and I'm not going to print them for anyone or give my computer over
d) phone records are trashed once my bill is paid..back to the land fill they can go on their fishing trip

Hee!

Mine would be a diary full of pointless/useless business meetings sure to put anyone to sleep, my hard drive would be full of about 6,000 pictures of my dog taken over her 9 years on earth (not exaggerating), pictures of family and relatives and friends...they would spend hours and hours combing through a lot of NOTHING. All billable hours to Brad, btw.

And no matter how much they comb through the friends, there is nothing that will be able to undo the murder, nothing that can undo those scratches on the back of his neck, observed by the detectives Saturday afternoon, nothing that can heal his broken daughters' hearts as he ripped their mother away from them forever. NOTHING. No matter what else he has achieved in his life, there is no amount of education or Ironman competitions or awards from Cisco or money or ANYTHING that will erase this murder and bring back his childrens' mother. He will forever be associated with her murder (and hopefully in prison the rest of his life if guilty). His soul is forever seared by his actions. And there is nothing that he can do about it.

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 04:04 PM
To determine the facts they are up against, all the defense attorneys have to do is look at the list of things taken as a result of the SWs, plus the 4am visit to HT, along with his 6am visit to HT, along with the forensic info that will show whether his wife's hair was in the trunk, and show why Brad LIED on several key items. THAT'S what the attorneys need to concern themselves with, IMHO.

The friends' diaries and pictures and calenders? Pfffftttt. A whole lotta n.o.t.h.i.n.g. Please. Don't bother insulting our intelligence, Mr. High Powered Defense Attorneys.

Go back to working on "Johnny Cochran's Rhyming 101" series. Remember, 'fit' and 'acquit' are off the table. Chop-Chop! You've got some real work to do.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 04:11 PM
The minute I saw Blum prancing into the court house with BC he reminded me of this character!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/LuvClaysVoice2003/geico.jpgMy name is Seth Blum and I want your "diaries, appointment books, phone records, pictures."

Topsail Girl
09-11-2008, 04:15 PM
To determine the facts they are up against, all the defense attorneys have to do is look at the list of things taken as a result of the SWs, plus the 4am visit to HT, along with his 6am visit to HT, along with the forensic info that will show whether his wife's hair was in the trunk, and show why Brad LIED on several key items. THAT'S what the attorneys need to concern themselves with, IMHO.

The friends' diaries and pictures and calenders? Pfffftttt. A whole lotta n.o.t.h.i.n.g. Please. Don't bother insulting our intelligence, Mr. High Powered Defense Attorneys.

Go back to working on "Johnny Cochran's Rhyming 101" series. Remember, 'fit' and 'acquit' are off the table. Chop-Chop! You got some real work to do.

"Stupid", "selfish" and "monster" are still on the table they just don't rhyme dang it all. They do however describe Brad pretty darned well.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 04:19 PM
I don't think this is the one you posted Fran.
Now he is pushing further!

attorneys for Brad Cooper have asked more than a dozen of Nancy Cooper's friends to hand over e-mails, text messages, letters and other correspondence to prove their statements made on behalf of Nancy Cooper's parents, Garry and Donna Rentz and twin sister Krista Lister, who is seeking custody of the couple's two young daughters.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3529547/

jmflu
09-11-2008, 04:23 PM
Nope, that's the one I posted on the other thread...

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 04:35 PM
HI :wave: K&B. I'm sure you are lurking to see what kind of controversy you have stirred up now. :crazy:

raisincharlie
09-11-2008, 04:38 PM
"Stupid", "selfish" and "monster" are still on the table they just don't rhyme dang it all. They do however describe Brad pretty darned well.

It seems rather obvious to me that the current issues raised on behalf of Mr. Cooper are indeed self serving and selfish. This is more smoke and mirrors with the goal being he knows he will have to take the stand in the upcoming custody hearing - the aim is first to see how many are willing to still stand up, second to find any and all dirt possible to discredit them and most importantly to keep anyone from saying anything about Nancy's murder so that he does not have to answer any questions related to that issue. If the last cannot be accomplished there is no way he is going to take the stand just like he didn't take it on the 25th.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 04:45 PM
[...]

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6384921

[...]

Brad asks that Nancy's friends produce any evidence they may have of "any sexual or romantic relationship Nancy Cooper had with any person other than her husband, Bradley Cooper."

Wow. This insinuation just keeps coming up (both through official channels, as well as the word-of-mouth channels... ). It's why Theory B (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2465948&postcount=171) (or some variant) remains on the table. Maybe there's nothing there... but dang... it sure keeps coming up...

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 04:55 PM
[...]
The filings also demand Jessica Adams, the friend who called 911 to report Nancy missing, produce evidence of "any romantic relationship with any person other than your spouse."
She is asked to do the same with any evidence of any affairs her husband might have had. [...]

Wonder why JA and husband were specifically singled out here? Hmmm....
Article says they both (her and husband) deny it though.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 04:56 PM
It seems rather obvious to me that the current issues raised on behalf of Mr. Cooper are indeed self serving and selfish. This is more smoke and mirrors with the goal being he knows he will have to take the stand in the upcoming custody hearing - the aim is first to see how many are willing to still stand up, second to find any and all dirt possible to discredit them and most importantly to keep anyone from saying anything about Nancy's murder so that he does not have to answer any questions related to that issue. If the last cannot be accomplished there is no way he is going to take the stand just like he didn't take it on the 25th.

Probably one of those 'the best defense is a good offense' approaches...

tarheellvr
09-11-2008, 04:58 PM
Well, Nancy's murder was not witnessed firsthand (except by the murderer), but much is told from "what they learned" from the autopsy.

We don't know WHO witnessed Nancy's murder besides the murderer himself...Mr. Bradley Cooper.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 05:05 PM
I have a strong feeling there is NO way the friends are going to submit one thing and the LE will see to it. This needs to be saved for the murder trial and showing anything now will jepordize the case they are building. No one wants to show Blum their hand, and that is exactly what he is after.

This does make one wonder if they will step it up now and make a move on BC to prevent their witnesses from revealing anything they know.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 05:08 PM
I bet the ME phone is ringing as well as the labs to get the documents in so they can get this done before months' end.
This might just back fire on BC and his so called attorney's.

tarheellvr
09-11-2008, 05:15 PM
I bet the ME phone is ringing as well as the labs to get the documents in so they can get this done before months' end.
This might just back fire on BC and his so called attorney's.

I hope you're right Mom.....how sweet it would be if it DOES indeed backfire on BC.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 05:22 PM
I bet the ME phone is ringing as well as the labs to get the documents in so they can get this done before months' end.
This might just back fire on BC and his so called attorney's.

I hope you're right Mom.....how sweet it would be if it DOES indeed backfire on BC.

ME's office, and the SBI too (to put a 'rush' on the forensic analysis). Maybe they'll do an 'all hands on deck' evidence blitz to put this one on the fast track before the custody hearing...

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 05:25 PM
I don't think anything can or will force Mr. Cool Cucumber DA to rush forward with anything. Brad and attorneys can dance around all they want. The DA appears to be an unmovable mountain until he's good and ready. And the custody case is a civil matter...the DA doesn't have to do a thing to participate there.

fran
09-11-2008, 05:28 PM
Wow. This insinuation just keeps coming up (both through official channels, as well as the word-of-mouth channels... ). It's why Theory B (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2465948&postcount=171) (or some variant) remains on the table. Maybe there's nothing there... but dang... it sure keeps coming up...

The only hint I've seen of Nancy having an affair was from Brad's own mouth. Pretty self-serving, if you ask me. Since she's no longer alive to defend herself!:mad:

JMHO
fran

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 05:33 PM
The only hint I've seen of Nancy having an affair was from Brad's own mouth. Pretty self-serving, if you ask me. Since she's no longer alive to defend herself!:mad:

And a 'non-sexual affair' as was described by him. :rolleyes: Much ado about poo.

fran
09-11-2008, 05:34 PM
I have a strong feeling there is NO way the friends are going to submit one thing and the LE will see to it. This needs to be saved for the murder trial and showing anything now will jepordize the case they are building. No one wants to show Blum their hand, and that is exactly what he is after.

This does make one wonder if they will step it up now and make a move on BC to prevent their witnesses from revealing anything they know.

I don't know that much about the law, but I know the friends have already gotten a lawyer and are fighting this. I do not think they will make the friends give their personal information.

This is about Nancy and Brad, NOT Jessica and her hubby or anyone else! That has NOTHING to do with Brad NOT being a fit parent.

THIS is what shows Brad is NOT a fit parent. His ruthless manner in destroying everything in his path to get what he wants. It's going to backfire, BIG TIME!:bang:

Just think what he'd do to those poor little girls when they wouldn't stop crying or he doesn't understand what the little one wants because he doesn't know how to 'read the signs.':mad:

JMHO
fran

fran
09-11-2008, 05:36 PM
And a 'non-sexual affair' as was described by him. :rolleyes: Much ado about poo.

EXACTLY!

He thinks people are stoopid! Who admits to a NONsexual affair!?:crazy:

:mad:
fran

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 05:38 PM
EXACTLY!

He thinks people are stoopid! Who admits to a NONsexual affair!?:crazy:

:mad:
fran

You know what that's called? A 'friendship' with the opposite sex. BFD. Brad cheated on Nancy and more than once, per the evidence out there. He and his lawyers are opening themselves up for questioning on this and other areas. Dumb move to attack.

fran
09-11-2008, 05:39 PM
Wonder why JA and husband were specifically singled out here? Hmmm....
Article says they both (her and husband) deny it though.

He's just pizzed because of the 911 call from Jessica. She IMMEDIATELY suspected he did something to Nancy and she told LE that too! Then she put it in her affidavit.

He knew by putting that out there, people would start to suspect they were having affairs. I mean,..........who puts 'lies' in affidavits?(no need to answer that, I know, but no one believed me, that Brad would lie on an affidavit,.....which I BELIEVE he did)

JMHO
fran

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 05:40 PM
I don't think anything can or will force Mr. Cool Cucumber DA to rush forward with anything. Brad and attorneys can dance around all they want. The DA appears to be an unmovable mountain until he's good and ready. And the custody case is a civil matter...the DA doesn't have to do a thing to participate there.
But if the CPD has what they feel is enough there is a chance they can get him to budge. This is an unique case in itself with children involved...so maybe we will see a different time frame used because of this. Let's hope so!

fran
09-11-2008, 05:42 PM
You know what that's called? A 'friendship' with the opposite sex. BFD. Brad cheated on Nancy and more than once, per the evidence out there. He and his lawyers are opening themselves up for questioning on this and other areas. Dumb move to attack.

That is what I've been trying to say. Brad needs to fire this lawyer, ASAP!

Oh, wait, no......I like a defense lawyer that works for the prosecution. Mark G did it during the Scott Peterson trial. LOL, he just didn't realize it until it was toooooo late. gothcha'!:bang:

JMHO
fran

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 05:42 PM
But if the CPD has what they feel is enough there is a chance they can get him to budge. This is an unique case in itself with children involved...so maybe we will see a different time frame used because of this. Let's hope so!

I remain hopeful he will find the necessary motivation to move forward on this case (and a couple others too).

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 05:46 PM
It doesn't matter if Nancy ever had a (non-sexual) affair EIGHT years ago (per his affidavit).

MOOT POINT altogether.

SHE turned up dead. Murdered. That's a fact.

He was the last person to ever see her alive. And he LIED about his timeline, lied about his vehicle and the cleaning of it, lied about a lot of things. That will come out in court. And nothing he can point at changes the fact of what he did. And he knows it. LE knows it. And so do his lawyers, and everyone else.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 05:50 PM
It doesn't matter if Nancy ever had a (non-sexual) affair EIGHT years ago (per his affidavit).


Agreed. I guess it's not clear to me that the recent moves by BC's attorneys pertain to the 4-year (or 8-year) old non-sexual affair mentioned in BC's original affidavit... or... something more recent.

But yeah, as mentioned... other than various word-of-mouth rumors that seem to keep coming up... nothing to substantiate anything like that at this point, so I guess we'll see.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 05:53 PM
I remain hopeful he will find the necessary motivation to move forward on this case (and a couple others too).

There is a 1st time for everything!
If the CPD approaches the DA about BC's case and says...we have everything, but waiting on DNA only. So far it is ALL pointing to BC...problem is the civil matter. The defense is trying to make our witnesses talk. It is GOING to hurt our murder trial if it is ruled to make them talk on the stand.

If the DA takes a back seat on this when trials were done up until the last 15? years without DNA being needed to convict...he needs to be replaced in 2 years IMO.

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 05:56 PM
If the DA takes a back seat on this when trials were done up until the last 15? years without DNA being needed to convict...he needs to be replaced in 2 years IMO.

Totally agree. But TWO years is a long time. Is this DA so completely paranoid/sensitive about his record that he would not make a move on murder cases he didn't deem a "complete slam dunk" and let his term run out? Is he an Alex Hunter?

mahmoo
09-11-2008, 06:16 PM
It's a shame that Nancy's friends are saddled with the cost of retaining attorneys for a situation they had nothing to do with. Secondly, I shudder to think the possibility exists that Katie & Bella could be returned to Brad's care only to be taken away again if he is charged with murder.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 06:28 PM
The actual subpoena's are posted on wral now, along with some of the objections. Some stuff in there implying NC's tires were slashed at some point over the recent past. (The defense requesting plantiff's to communicate any knowledge they have of same). Is that something new, or has it come up before? I don't recall past mention of it...

ncnative
09-11-2008, 06:32 PM
I don't know that much about the law, but I know the friends have already gotten a lawyer and are fighting this. I do not think they will make the friends give their personal information.

This is about Nancy and Brad, NOT Jessica and her hubby or anyone else! That has NOTHING to do with Brad NOT being a fit parent.

THIS is what shows Brad is NOT a fit parent. His ruthless manner in destroying everything in his path to get what he wants. It's going to backfire, BIG TIME!:bang:

Just think what he'd do to those poor little girls when they wouldn't stop crying or he doesn't understand what the little one wants because he doesn't know how to 'read the signs.':mad:

JMHO
fran

Fran, see where I bolded your comment.

What is your source that Nancy's friends have gotten lawyers, etc.? I must be behind.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 06:34 PM
Fran, see where I bolded your comment.

What is your source that Nancy's friends have gotten lawyers, etc.? I must be behind.

It's mentioned in at least one of the news articles with the story I think. Also, the subpoena's are posted on WRAL now, and some of them already have corresponding objections from the plaintiff's attorneys to the request.

ncnative
09-11-2008, 06:42 PM
I see. Now begins a new direction of mud slinging diversions from the murder.

If I were any of Nancy's friends who signed affidavits, I would not feel safe until Mr. Murderer is :behindbar seriously

Anubis
09-11-2008, 07:00 PM
First of all, have any of you actually seen the affidavits to see what the friends swore to? Secondly, the defense attorneys are doing what defense attorney's do: they ask for anything and everything including the kitchen sink. It doesn't mean they'll get it or that they are entitled to it; it's just part of the game. A good attorney will simply counter by requesting denial of the request. Thirdly, the statement "you'd better be able to back up what you say" in an affidavit is broad and incorrect. If it is a character affidavit, the person swearing to and signing the affidavit is entitled to state what they believe the character of the individual is (that is, if Nancy stated to her friend that she thought her husband was having an affair, the friend can attest to that in the affidavit without having pictures of the husband cheating) You can attest to what your personal belief of a persons character is WITHOUT anything other than your opinion, based on conversations or eye witness accounts.

ncnative
09-11-2008, 07:13 PM
I see. Now begins a new direction of mud slinging diversions from the murder.

If I were any of Nancy's friends who signed affidavits, I would not feel safe until Mr. Murderer is :behindbar seriously
In answer to your question, Anubis, if we have "...actually SEEN any of the affidavits...", yes of COURSE. I have read every one of them more than twice. I also live in the neighborhood where Nancy lived. I'm not just sitting around making off-the-wall comments.

By "...Nancy's friends who signed affidavits,..." I was referring to the original affs. If there have been more, I haven't seen them yet.

And, Brad's lawyers are just NOW going for the friends' "proof of what they claimed"? Why not earlier?

raisincharlie
09-11-2008, 07:14 PM
First of all, have any of you actually seen the affidavits to see what the friends swore to? Secondly, the defense attorneys are doing what defense attorney's do: they ask for anything and everything including the kitchen sink. It doesn't mean they'll get it or that they are entitled to it; it's just part of the game. A good attorney will simply counter by requesting denial of the request. Thirdly, the statement "you'd better be able to back up what you say" in an affidavit is broad and incorrect. If it is a character affidavit, the person swearing to and signing the affidavit is entitled to state what they believe the character of the individual is (that is, if Nancy stated to her friend that she thought her husband was having an affair, the friend can attest to that in the affidavit without having pictures of the husband cheating) You can attest to what your personal belief of a persons character is WITHOUT anything other than your opinion, based on conversations or eye witness accounts.

The affidavits are linked in the thread above titled "Legal Docs". So yes we have seen what the friends have sworn to.

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 07:16 PM
First of all, have any of you actually seen the affidavits to see what the friends swore to? Secondly, the defense attorneys are doing what defense attorney's do: they ask for anything and everything including the kitchen sink. It doesn't mean they'll get it or that they are entitled to it; it's just part of the game. A good attorney will simply counter by requesting denial of the request. Thirdly, the statement "you'd better be able to back up what you say" in an affidavit is broad and incorrect. If it is a character affidavit, the person swearing to and signing the affidavit is entitled to state what they believe the character of the individual is (that is, if Nancy stated to her friend that she thought her husband was having an affair, the friend can attest to that in the affidavit without having pictures of the husband cheating) You can attest to what your personal belief of a persons character is WITHOUT anything other than your opinion, based on conversations or eye witness accounts.

Anubis, HERE (http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/23/3258895/1216912148-Plaintiff_affidavits2.pdf) are the affidavits from Nancy's friends.

And here (http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2008/7/23/bradley%20cooper.pdf) is the rebuttal affidavit by Brad and his side.

All are listed and linked in the LEGAL DOCUMENTS thread at the top of the forum.

ncnative
09-11-2008, 07:36 PM
Anubis, and yes I have seen/read the subpoenas of Nancy's friends. We at Websleuths have the legal documents listed on the index page of Nancy Cooper's page.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 07:59 PM
Anubis, and yes I have seen/read the subpoenas of Nancy's friends. We at Websleuths have the legal documents listed on the index page of Nancy Cooper's page.

The recent subpoena's from BC's side aren't yet posted on the Legal Documents thread of WebSleaths. I'm sure they will be at some point. They are available here (http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/09/11/3531556/20080911173611431.pdf)in the meantime.

Interesting stuff... as Anubis mentioned, no doubt BC's attorneys realize that much of their requests will be turned down. However, it's possible (and may not be a complete surprise) for the custody judge, out of an abundance of caution w.r.t. custody matters, decide that some of it is reasonable and require the plaintiff's to provide it, so that the most informed decision can be made in the custody matter. We'll see.

news247
09-11-2008, 08:45 PM
The recent subpoena's from BC's side aren't yet posted on the Legal Documents thread of WebSleaths. I'm sure they will be at some point. They are available here (http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/09/11/3531556/20080911173611431.pdf)in the meantime.

Interesting stuff... as Anubis mentioned, no doubt BC's attorneys realize that much of their requests will be turned down. However, it's possible (and may not be a complete surprise) for the custody judge, out of an abundance of caution w.r.t. custody matters, decide that some of it is reasonable and require the plaintiff's to provide it, so that the most informed decision can be made in the custody matter. We'll see.

Oh - SORRY, jumpstreet! I posted link to the docs in the DOC thread...didn't realize you had already posted them here - so sorry.

They are interesting reading for sure.

news247
09-11-2008, 08:52 PM
The actual subpoena's are posted on wral now, along with some of the objections. Some stuff in there implying NC's tires were slashed at some point over the recent past. (The defense requesting plantiff's to communicate any knowledge they have of same). Is that something new, or has it come up before? I don't recall past mention of it...

yeah - the tire deal is interesting, would like to know the details, but....i'm nosy, i admit it!

also kinda interesting - SOME of the ppl are asked to provide info about affairs (both adams, d. duncan, m.morwick - Can't remember which others, have to go back and read.....) but some are not asked - wonder what's up with that.

also, nothing for Carrie - wonder why not. of course, her's was just factual info - she did not run with nancy that day, period. so i guess that's why, she gave no opinions or speculations.

there seems to be so much more to this case than we know right now.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 09:02 PM
yeah - the tire deal is interesting, would like to know the details, but....i'm nosy, i admit it!

BC obviously knows something happened with the tires at some point, and he must think these folks know something about it... it's too pointed a question to just be random. Whether that something is relevant... who knows.



also kinda interesting - SOME of the ppl are asked to provide info about affairs (both adams, d. duncan, m.morwick - Can't remember which others, have to go back and read.....) but some are not asked - wonder what's up with that.

Yeah, exactly. The obviously explanation would be that BC knows for sure (or has reason to believe) that the specific ones he asks might have also had some extracurricular activities. Maybe it's just smoke and mirrors. If not, what's up with that section of Lochmere... more than just neighborhood BBQs going on?... ]



also, nothing for Carrie - wonder why not. of course, her's was just factual info - she did not run with nancy that day, period. so i guess that's why, she gave no opinions or speculations.

Would have been funny to subpoena her to provide all email/text-messages/letters/etc as evidence that you did not go running with NC on July 12th. :). Seriously, the lack of an subpoena for her presumably implies (to me at least) that BC doesn't think she has anything to offer (and/or that she would prefer to hide)




there seems to be so much more to this case than we know right now.

You got that right... [change word "seems" to "is", and you're spot on! :) ]

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 09:17 PM
Updated per WRAL.COM

"We are not on a fishing expedition," Kurtz said. "It's very important information, and certainly, these are things we need to flesh out."

Kurtz would not say why he wants information regarding any extramarital affairs in the Adams' marriage, but said: "I think that is a very valid question that I fully expect will be made clearer somewhere down the road."

Important in a custody hearing???:waitasec:
I thought this was custody of Bella and Katie Cooper not the Adam's son. :confused:

I guess Kurtz is either reading the boards or knows darn well this is a 'fishing expedition.'

ncnative
09-11-2008, 09:23 PM
yeah - the tire deal is interesting, would like to know the details, but....i'm nosy, i admit it!

also kinda interesting - SOME of the ppl are asked to provide info about affairs (both adams, d. duncan, m.morwick - Can't remember which others, have to go back and read.....) but some are not asked - wonder what's up with that.

also, nothing for Carrie - wonder why not. of course, her's was just factual info - she did not run with nancy that day, period. so i guess that's why, she gave no opinions or speculations.

there seems to be so much more to this case than we know right now.

Ah yes! More than we know is so true.:eye:

I wonder if Brad "knew" any other women in Nancy's circle? I hope not. If not, he wants to embarrass someone who he thinks had an affair, but what the heck does that have to do with Nancy's demise? I suppose it casts a shadow off Brad and onto someone else.

ncnative
09-11-2008, 09:25 PM
"Flesh out." Interesting choice of words from Kurtz. He must be hinting at pleasures of the flesh, sins of the flesh. A diversion from the murderer. Flesh. Hmmmm....

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 09:37 PM
Tires slashed has a date of Jan 1, 2006 to now....the area has had many break-ins like I have been trying to say. I believe someone else I heard of getting broken into had tires slashed.

Now this is crossing the line and the LE and/or DA need to address it.......and all correspondence between person subpoena'd and the LE and/ or DA.

The subpoena was for today's date to appear. I wonder if it was heard..anyone know?

EntreNous
09-11-2008, 09:43 PM
Wow. This insinuation just keeps coming up (both through official channels, as well as the word-of-mouth channels... ). It's why Theory B (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2465948&postcount=171) (or some variant) remains on the table. Maybe there's nothing there... but dang... it sure keeps coming up...

If Theory B were still on the table, LE would be asking for this information, NOT K&B. If Theory B were still on the table, LE wouldn't still be looking at BC because afterall, if Theory B were still on the table LE would have stopped looking at BC a long time ago.

EntreNous
09-11-2008, 09:48 PM
Updated per WRAL.COM

"We are not on a fishing expedition," Kurtz said. "It's very important information, and certainly, these are things we need to flesh out."

Kurtz would not say why he wants information regarding any extramarital affairs in the Adams' marriage, but said: "I think that is a very valid question that I fully expect will be made clearer somewhere down the road."

Important in a custody hearing???:waitasec:
I thought this was custody of Bella and Katie Cooper not the Adam's son. :confused:

I guess Kurtz is either reading the boards or knows darn well this is a 'fishing expedition.'
Let 'em keep on fishing. They're not going to get anywhere with this and they're just "fleshing out" what a seedy creep their client is.

Great job Putz & Doom! :crazy:

You really have Brad Cooper on the road to nowhere!:behindbar

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 09:52 PM
Susan Crook was one of the people who appeared on GMA. I had not seen this name before. She got a subpoena also.

news247
09-11-2008, 10:02 PM
"Flesh out." Interesting choice of words from Kurtz. He must be hinting at pleasures of the flesh, sins of the flesh. A diversion from the murderer. Flesh. Hmmmm....

hummm. i didn't get that feeling at all - i thought he meant he needed to "filll our" 'add to " "flesh out" the stories....but that's just me.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 10:06 PM
Dear K&B...word to the wise. Keep Fishing and you might get more than you bargained for!:clap:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/LuvClaysVoice2003/gonefishing1.gif

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 10:06 PM
'Flesh out'
'Fishing'

I feel a bout of alliteration coming on.

However, I challenge the defense to use palindromes as a unique technique to show oneupmanship over the plaintiffs. That would make for a much more interesting (not to mention brief) set of subpoenas. Then again, lawyers are not into being brief on ummm...briefs (or boxers).

SleuthyGal
09-11-2008, 10:09 PM
Asking for info about slashing of tires NC's car tires from 2006 and on... ???

Susan Crook is being asked for info about any contact with Interact from Jan 2007 and on. She is also being asked for info concerning a rel'p between Nancy and { blocked out on document}.

jmflu
09-11-2008, 10:09 PM
Palindromes?

I thought I was good with words, but this is a new one!

jilly
09-11-2008, 10:17 PM
Unbelievable after learning about this - two words come to mind - intimidation and distraction.

Imo, if it comes down to a custody hearing, the Judge will only be concerned with the results of a psych exam and any other professional opinion with respect to BCs mental stability. I have to say, though, these subpoenas certainly give a flavor for that!:crazy:

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 10:22 PM
Susan Crook is new to me. Has anyone heard of her before? Her affidavit was not posted was it?
Here is our link to Interact that we have been wondering about and how they came into this situation. Wow...Jan 2007 until now.

This friend has my curiousity up because she obviously knew quite a bit to get involved with Interact on behalf of her friend.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 10:23 PM
If Theory B were still on the table, LE would be asking for this information, NOT K&B. If Theory B were still on the table, LE wouldn't still be looking at BC because afterall, if Theory B were still on the table LE would have stopped looking at BC a long time ago.

It's a good point. Although I'm not sure we know for sure that LE is still looking at BC. We only know that they were looking at him fairly closely nearly 2 months ago. [ I guess we know/assume that they haven't requested any SW's for anyone else, so maybe they are still looking at him, but our info is fairly on exactly what/who LE is looking at is fairly dated wouldn't you say? ]

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 10:39 PM
Susan Crook is new to me. Has anyone heard of her before? Her affidavit was not posted was it?
Here is our link to Interact that we have been wondering about and how they came into this situation. Wow...Jan 2007 until now.

This friend has my curiosity up because she obviously knew quite a bit to get involved with Interact on behalf of her friend.

Item 12 on Susan Crook's affidavit implies she has knowledge of a specific person who NC may have had relations with since Jan 1 2007 (so presumably, this is a different relationship than the 4-year old non-sexual one that BC initially made mention of in his affidavit). Maybe he didn't want to pull out any big bombshells (out of respect) in his initial rebuttal affidavit?

Who knows how much of this will be relevant in the custody hearing, maybe some, maybe none. (But probably at least some...)

All of this could very well be 'smoke and mirrors' as mentioned, and no doubt some of it is. But y'all... this is a lot of smoke... and you know what they say about "where there's smoke..." [Not sayin'... I'm just sayin' :) ]

Skittles
09-11-2008, 10:40 PM
Susan Crook is new to me. Has anyone heard of her before? Her affidavit was not posted was it?
Here is our link to Interact that we have been wondering about and how they came into this situation. Wow...Jan 2007 until now.

This friend has my curiousity up because she obviously knew quite a bit to get involved with Interact on behalf of her friend.

Is Susan the one who came out on somebody's lawn (Diana's?) to do an interview as the "spokespeson" for friends of Nancy after Nancy's was found?

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 10:44 PM
Susan Crook is new to me. Has anyone heard of her before? Her affidavit was not posted was it?

My assumption is that all the custody affidavits have been posted, and the SC did not submit one. I didn't see anything in BC's subpoena of her that indicated she had submitted one. [ Presumably, BC is free to subpoena anyone he wants to as it pertains to collecting data for the custody hearing, whether or not they previously submitted an affidavit for the plaintiff's... ]

jmflu
09-11-2008, 10:45 PM
Susan Crook is new to me. Has anyone heard of her before? Her affidavit was not posted was it?
Here is our link to Interact that we have been wondering about and how they came into this situation. Wow...Jan 2007 until now.


Where, Mom? Not sure where to look at this...

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 10:48 PM
Item 12 on Susan Crook's affidavit implies she has knowledge of a specific person who NC may have had relations with since Jan 1 2007 (so presumably, this is a different relationship than the 4-year old non-sexual one that BC initially made mention of in his affidavit). Maybe he didn't want to pull out any big bombshells (out of respect) in the initial one?

Who knows how much of this will be relevant in the custody hearing, maybe some, maybe none. (But probably at least some...)

All of this could very well be 'smoke and mirrors' as mentioned, and no doubt some of it is. But y'all... this is a lot of smoke... and you know what they say about "where there's smoke..." [Not sayin'... I'm just sayin' :) ]

BC and mommy dearest have had time to search the home with a fine tooth comb on a daily basis. He has probably located a business card or name mentioned in a Birthday Card and is grasping at straws.

IF and a big IF she was turning to a male for someone to talk to it does NOT warrant murder! If he pulls this stunt it is going to do only 1 thing to him. Show additional motive for murder! He needs to calm his heels and think this one out IMO

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 10:49 PM
Where, Mom? Not sure where to look at this...
WRAL the 3rd? person I believe. After JA and BA.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 10:49 PM
Where, Mom? Not sure where to look at this...

Hi jmflu... the subpoena of SC can be found on page 16 of the document posted here (http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/09/11/3531556/20080911173611431.pdf).

All the subpoenas that BC's defense team submitted today (along with a number of associated appeals from plaintiff's are bundled in that same file.

jmflu
09-11-2008, 10:51 PM
It is possible, perhaps, that it wasn't a man. And that might be, perhaps, why it didn't come up before? Not saying she was a lesbian, I hope no one is thinking I am saying that! But encounters have been known to happen... maybe I'm just crazy... but it's possible she had a liason with a close friend at some point. Just another possibility.

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 10:55 PM
IF and a big IF she was turning to a male for someone to talk to it does NOT warrant murder!

Agreed.



If he pulls this stunt it is going to do only 1 thing to him: Show additional motive for murder! He needs to calm his heels and think this one out IMO

Also agreed, if we assume he is guilty.

[ Though, side-bar, as posted before, I remain one of the (few?) still not fully convinced of that ;) No attacks please... it's late... :) ]

jmflu
09-11-2008, 10:55 PM
Thanks Jump and Mom, for the info!

jumpstreet
09-11-2008, 10:56 PM
It is possible, perhaps, that it wasn't a man. And that might be, perhaps, why it didn't come up before? Not saying she was a lesbian, I hope no one is thinking I am saying that! But encounters have been known to happen... maybe I'm just crazy... but it's possible she had a liason with a close friend at some point. Just another possibility.

Scandalous jmflu... just scandalous! ;)

ncnative
09-11-2008, 10:59 PM
JMFLU, that thought has crossed my mind too, about what you said.

jmflu
09-11-2008, 11:04 PM
And who could blame her with a husband like THAT!

I personally don't see it as doing anything wrong, AND, perhaps BC didn't either... there are a lot of men who are not threatened by that... but now he will sling mud wherever he can...

Wait, who am I talking about? BC not threatened??

EntreNous
09-11-2008, 11:05 PM
It's a good point. Although I'm not sure we know for sure that LE is still looking at BC. We only know that they were looking at him fairly closely nearly 2 months ago. [ I guess we know/assume that they haven't requested any SW's for anyone else, so maybe they are still looking at him, but our info is fairly on exactly what/who LE is looking at is fairly dated wouldn't you say? ]
I'm willing to bet that local news would be reporting on additional search warrants on this case. They certainly were on top of this latest bit of news. I have this case on my Google alerts and haven't heard of any additional SWs.

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 11:06 PM
OT...but have you all filled your gas tank? I went this evening and it is limited to 10 gallons where I went tonight. Also they are saying it can go to $5 because of the storm.

OK.. back to business about BC..:woohoo:

jmflu
09-11-2008, 11:07 PM
OT...but have you all filled your gas tank? I went this evening and it is limited to 10 gallons where I went tonight. Also they are saying it can go to $5 because of the storm.

OK.. back to business about BC..:woohoo:


Maybe this is a dumb question...but why would they limit it here?

momto3kids
09-11-2008, 11:26 PM
Maybe this is a dumb question...but why would they limit it here?

They say in anticipation of what is getting ready to happen on the gulf coast. Production will be down by the oil refineries and the graph on the news show NC as one of the states that gets it from the one that might be hit.

mollymalone
09-12-2008, 12:16 AM
You know what that's called? A 'friendship' with the opposite sex. BFD. Brad cheated on Nancy and more than once, per the evidence out there. He and his lawyers are opening themselves up for questioning on this and other areas. Dumb move to attack.If they're dumb enough to insist on this "non sexual affair" coming into court then the Brad's sexual affairs will certainly be examined, further questioning his fitness.

mollymalone
09-12-2008, 12:26 AM
He and his lawyer have got to know that whatever gets brought up in the civil hearing is likely to be brought up in a criminal trial if LE determines he's the perp and is arrested and tried. So I find it interesting that they'd want to "go there" regarding any alleged affairs or try to sully the friends so publicly. Those are the same people who would end up testifying in a criminal trial. Smearing them might make a jury feel that he was indeed a controlling person.

fran
09-12-2008, 12:32 AM
I frankly don't see the judge letting this cra* fly. There is NO WAY they're going to get statements or whatever from the other couples as to their 'private affairs.' Their 'private affairs' have NOTHING to do with Brad Cooper being a 'fit' or 'unfit' father.

As far as emails and chats, whatever, there's no way for him to get them. Who the heck keeps emails?

Oh, yeah, didn't I see they want copies of their posts from 'blogs?' What does THAT have to do with Brad NOT paying attention to his kids?

What does Nancy's friends going on tv have to do with BRAD, being an absent father?

His attorney said this wasn't a fishing expidition. LOL, yeah, right.:rolleyes:

It's more like validation of the type of person Nancy had to live with. It ain't pretty, either!:eek:

Poor Nancy. :( She had to put up with this creep during her life, now in death he's intent on destroying her even further! When THAT doesn't work, destroy her defenders!:chicken:

How low can you go?:furious: Are we there yet?:furious:

JMHO
fran

How can you look at yourself in a mirror? Yeah, YOU!! :mad:

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 12:34 AM
I know. However, based on this new set of documents, it appears that Brad and lawyers are attempting to suggest that Nancy had a more recent relationship with someone, possibly a sexual rel'p, sometime after Jan 2007.

However, murder trumps an affair in the 'who was worse' mudslinging sweepstakes. I don't think Brad's lawyers get this. It doesn't matter what Nancy did. She was murdered. Likely at the hands of her husband. Oh and he allegedly had more than 1 affair. Allegedly up to 4 affairs. Superdad indeed! And of course NONE of that explains away the basics of what is forming the criminal case:


1. Brad was the last person to see Nancy alive and
2. Nancy was murdered and
3. Nancy did not go running Sat. morning...not with Carrie and not with anyone else and
4. Not one person saw Nancy out and about on that Sat. morning and
5. The disappearance timeline is whittled down to between 7am and 8am (or 7am to 9am if you are feeling extra generous). 7am as that's the last time Brad said he saw Nancy, and 8am as that was when Nancy was expected to be at Jessica's house to help paint and she didn't show up.

They can fling alllll the mud they like but these 5 points and many, many others will not disappear under the mud.

rwesafe
09-12-2008, 01:17 AM
I know. However, based on this new set of documents, it appears that Brad and lawyers are attempting to suggest that Nancy had a more recent relationship with someone, possibly a sexual rel'p, sometime after Jan 2007.

This section of Lochmere has had a long history of popularity because of the swinging lifestyle.
However, murder trumps an affair in the 'who was worse' mudslinging sweepstakes. I don't think Brad's lawyers get this. It doesn't matter what Nancy did. She was murdered. Likely at the hands of her husband.

While I agree that murder trumps an affair, it does, however, indicate that there may have been more than 1 person with a motive.

Oh and he allegedly had more than 1 affair. Allegedly up to 4 affairs. Superdad indeed! And of course NONE of that explains away the basics of what is forming the criminal case:


1. Brad was the last person to see Nancy alive and
The last person that we, the public, know about.
2. Nancy was murdered and
3. Nancy did not go running Sat. morning...not with Carrie and not with anyone else and
4. Not one person saw Nancy out and about on that Sat. morning and
Again, not that we, the public, know of.5.
The disappearance timeline is whittled down to between 7am and 8am (or 7am to 9am if you are feeling extra generous). 7am as that's the last time Brad said he saw Nancy, and 8am as that was when Nancy was expected to be at Jessica's house to help paint and she didn't show up.

JA was quick to accuse...

They can fling alllll the mud they like but these 5 points and many, many others will not disappear under the mud.

True, but what if the autopsy report showed dna (sperm) from another male, but no forecable entry....No, does not justify the murder of NC, but does indicate that BC may not have been the only one with motive.....may not have been the last person to see her alive.....

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 01:27 AM
We have no info about the autopsy report. Do you have info about it?

Who else is LE investigating? SWs would be filed and would be made public...eventually. Who is this other person with a motive? Who stood to benefit from Nancy being gone?

Where does the evidence lead? Where was the crime scene? Where was forensic evidence found?

It doesn't matter what kind of popular/swinging community Lochmere was or wasn't or is or isn't. One has to follow the trail of evidence. If there is a mystery man involved then that person will become known and be investigated by LE.

Jessica was quick to WORRY about her friend. As I said before she was either a paranoid nervous Nelly who can compete on an Olympic level with my extreme, paranoid, worrying mother OR her gut instinct/her intuition was giving her some pretty loud and clear and accurate signals. Guess what? Jessica was RIGHT to worry! Her intuition told her something that was absolutely correct! (and my mother's Olympic-level record of worrying for no good reason remains untouched).

fran
09-12-2008, 01:34 AM
I know. However, based on this new set of documents, it appears that Brad and lawyers are attempting to suggest that Nancy had a more recent relationship with someone, possibly a sexual rel'p, sometime after Jan 2007.

However, murder trumps an affair in the 'who was worse' mudslinging sweepstakes. I don't think Brad's lawyers get this. It doesn't matter what Nancy did. She was murdered. Likely at the hands of her husband. Oh and he allegedly had more than 1 affair. Allegedly up to 4 affairs. Superdad indeed! And of course NONE of that explains away the basics of what is forming the criminal case:


1. Brad was the last person to see Nancy alive and
2. Nancy was murdered and
3. Nancy did not go running Sat. morning...not with Carrie and not with anyone else and
4. Not one person saw Nancy out and about on that Sat. morning and
5. The disappearance timeline is whittled down to between 7am and 8am (or 7am to 9am if you are feeling extra generous). 7am as that's the last time Brad said he saw Nancy, and 8am as that was when Nancy was expected to be at Jessica's house to help paint and she didn't show up.

They can fling alllll the mud they like but these 5 points and many, many others will not disappear under the mud.

Well, you covered means and opportunity,.........these latest demands COULD provide motive.

motive, means, opportunity.............may POSSIBLY = GUILTY! :behindbar

Just sayin'!
;)
fran

Oh, and PS.........by my post I'm NOT suggesting that Nancy did have an affair. As far as I KNOW, the only one alledging she had an affair is BRAD, oh, yeah, and it wasn't sexual. Oh, but by his latest attempts to discredit Nancy, (his murdered wife!), he is implicating there is a more RECENT affair. But, that would be a reason for HIM to kill her, now wouldn't it!? Whether TRUE or NOT, it's what's in his head! MOTIVE! :( fran

The Saint
09-12-2008, 04:03 AM
I believe, like ncsu95 said, that when you make statements under oath, then you'd better be able to back them up......especially in a murder case. All these people came forward and trashed BC and now the attorneys are asking where the proof is to back it up. How about making all these gossips submit to a mental evaluation or better yet lie detector tests. I know, they are not allowed in court, but BC's attorneys are just trying to find out what the truth is. And if all these folks who came forward are telling the truth there should be no problem submitting to it. My opinion is that the gossip spread and then grew and spread some more....and now BC is Satan himself in this nieghborhood full of bored housewives.
brad cooper is satan because he murdered his wife.

jmflu
09-12-2008, 07:32 AM
"This section of Lochmere has had a long history of popularity because of the swinging lifestyle."

Perhaps this is why BC is asking so many friends/couples to "admit" things... if he makes public that there have been things of this nature going on, he hopes to make his individual affairs look less damaging. "I'm not so bad, everyone's guilty of something..."

Just a thought.

RaleighNC
09-12-2008, 09:21 AM
If this is a custody hearing - how is digging up dirt on a dead woman relevant? She's obviously not seeking custody.

To me the fact that they (BC's lawyers) are focusing NC, and the possibility of an affair - they are trying to find reasonable doubt that he killed her - not address a custody issue.

The judge in the custody case ought to slap their collective hands - and say he's going to be ruling on brad's fitness as a parent or if the girls are better off with NC's family - so limit your inquiries to those folks. In the custody case - NC isn't a party - and this brings nothing to the table that would help him decide on the girls' future.

rwesafe
09-12-2008, 10:05 AM
We have no info about the autopsy report. Do you have info about it?

No we and I don't, but it is not inconceivable that information has leaked to the BC camp.
Who else is LE investigating? SWs would be filed and would be made public...eventually. Who is this other person with a motive? Who stood to benefit from Nancy being gone?

There are such things as crimes of passion, such as a jealous lover, where no one stands to benefit.

Where does the evidence lead? Where was the crime scene? Where was forensic evidence found?

Perhaps some of the electronic evidence led to a group of friends...

It doesn't matter what kind of popular/swinging community Lochmere was or wasn't or is or isn't. One has to follow the trail of evidence. If there is a mystery man involved then that person will become known and be investigated by LE.

[B]Assuming it was a mystery man, it could very well have been a woman. I agree, that person will become known as the investigation moves forward[B]

Jessica was quick to WORRY about her friend. As I said before she was either a paranoid nervous Nelly who can compete on an Olympic level with my extreme, paranoid, worrying mother OR her gut instinct/her intuition was giving her some pretty loud and clear and accurate signals. Guess what? Jessica was RIGHT to worry! Her intuition told her something that was absolutely correct! (and my mother's Olympic-level record of worrying for no good reason remains untouched).

Could have been intuition, or it could have been something completely different that compelled her to call.

I am not convinced BC did this. I know I am among the few.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 10:07 AM
If this is a custody hearing - how is digging up dirt on a dead woman relevant? She's obviously not seeking custody.

To me the fact that they (BC's lawyers) are focusing NC, and the possibility of an affair - they are trying to find reasonable doubt that he killed her - not address a custody issue.

The judge in the custody case ought to slap their collective hands - and say he's going to be ruling on brad's fitness as a parent or if the girls are better off with NC's family - so limit your inquiries to those folks. In the custody case - NC isn't a party - and this brings nothing to the table that would help him decide on the girls' future.

Seems to me the primary goal here is intimidation. Intimidation of anyone who has anything negative to say about Brad boy. He appears to be rather ruthless and the focus on phone records, in particular relating to long distance calls, seems to want to make the implication that the friends were in cahoots with the Rentz's in a concerted effort to remove the children. Then add in a possible defense case to prepare in the event he is arrested for murder, the goal will be to discredit potential witnesses. As per usual, Brad continues to use his children as tools and weapons IMO.

caryresident
09-12-2008, 10:27 AM
BC obviously knows something happened with the tires at some point, and he must think these folks know something about it... it's too pointed a question to just be random. Whether that something is relevant... who knows.



Yeah, exactly. The obviously explanation would be that BC knows for sure (or has reason to believe) that the specific ones he asks might have also had some extracurricular activities. Maybe it's just smoke and mirrors. If not, what's up with that section of Lochmere... more than just neighborhood BBQs going on?... ]



Would have been funny to subpoena her to provide all email/text-messages/letters/etc as evidence that you did not go running with NC on July 12th. :). Seriously, the lack of an subpoena for her presumably implies (to me at least) that BC doesn't think she has anything to offer (and/or that she would prefer to hide)




You got that right... [change word "seems" to "is", and you're spot on! :) ]



I have no proof just heresay that they're swingers. Maybe they've all been with each other :confused:

ncnative
09-12-2008, 10:50 AM
Oh my. I've lived in Lochwood (in Lochmere) for 20 years and had no idea that it was a "swinging community". "Bored housewives"? Dear dear. How does anyone in Nancy Cooper's and her "bored, swinging friend's" age bracket find time to get bored? Silly silly silly. But then, I'm old. What could I possibly know about life?

RasinCharlie, thank you for jerking the conversations back to sensibility and reality.

*reminding self to polish up my cane in hopes of locating swingers of my age bracket :Banane48:, since I'm in Lochmere...I might get lucky...*

I guess this means I'll be getting a subpoena in a few days, you know, since I've posted on the website here.:shakehead:

jmflu
09-12-2008, 10:54 AM
I have no proof just heresay that they're swingers. Maybe they've all been with each other :confused:

I'm thinking not. Because then there wouldn't have been so many accusations of BC having an "affair." It probably wouldn't be that big of a deal to them then.

But that doesn't rule out the possibility that some have experimented, and BC knows who they are, and is trying to use it to his advantage to make his indiscreditions seem less significant in the custody case.

Time will tell.

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 10:56 AM
There were a lot of references to a specific "Good Morning America" interview in the subpoena(s)... anyone know (or care to speculate) why? Not sure I recall seeing that particular interview (vs all the other media interviews, etc). Was there anything noteworthy about it?

Daphne69
09-12-2008, 11:23 AM
I think this is the GMA interview they are referecing. Personally, I don't see anything damaging to BC by NC's friends in it at all.

http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/what-happened-to-nancy-cooper/10603605/

EDIT: Ooops! can't be this one, SC isn't in it. Sorry.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 11:57 AM
I think this is the GMA interview they are referecing. Personally, I don't see anything damaging to BC by NC's friends in it at all.

http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/what-happened-to-nancy-cooper/10603605/

EDIT: Ooops! can't be this one, SC isn't in it. Sorry.


So is Brad boy just mad at Susan Crook because she spoke on TV ? It seems reasonable to figure that she did not supply an affidavit with respect to the custody case as it is not included in the 14 affidavits filed and in this recent subpeona there is no request for items to support any claim she made in an affidavit, unlike the others that mention an affidavit. Why is he so worried about Susan Crook's conversations with Interact on behalf of Nancy ? Why is there no subpeona for Interact ? The Rentz's subpeona'd Interact for the custody hearing and it seems to be now apparent that wasn't for expert testimony, after reveiwing the accusations leveled by Brad boy in the subpeona to Susan Crook. Hmmmmmm, where there's smoke there's fire for the most part.

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 01:25 PM
So is Brad boy just mad at Susan Crook because she spoke on TV ?

He seemed to ask a number of them for information specific to a particular GMA interview... so apparantly in the defense team's eyes, there is something relevent there (not sure what, but it doesn't seem like it's a general "I'm mad at anyone who spoke on TV to anyone" type of query)


The Rentz's subpeona'd Interact for the custody hearing and it seems to be now apparent that wasn't for expert testimony, after reviewing the accusations leveled by Brad boy in the subpoena to Susan Crook.

Yeah, it's curious... the plaintiff's want to know about Interact... and BC wants to know what SC knows about Interact. *Something* must have gone down with Interact at some point. Who knows what.


Hmmmmmm, where there's smoke there's fire for the most part.

You're right RC... it's starting to get pretty smokey around here, that's for sure! [ neighborhood swinging, slashed tires, new implications of a (more recent) affair by NC... Interact involvement... ] At least some of it will probably end up being relevant in the custody hearing... time will tell how much. Whether any of it is relevant to the criminal investigation... that's also an unknown too I suppose (for now).

fran
09-12-2008, 01:34 PM
Whatever the REASON is for these latest filings by the 'defense,' IMHO, LE is :Ding with glee!:bang:

I think Brad's slip is showing!;)

JMHO
fran

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 01:39 PM
I have had no doubt from the time I saw the Rentz's had subpeona'd Interact for the custody issue on 25 July that there is something to it. Brad accuses Susan Crook, basically, of contacting Interact on behalf of Nancy - there has to be a reason why, (if she did) and why Brad wants to know. But funny he didn't subpeona Interact to find out - probably because they have legal grounds to quash a subpeona. Chicken.

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 01:44 PM
It makes one wonder if there are allegations of abuse by Nancy on behalf of herself and/or the kids and if there are incident(s) documented at Interact. And if there is info and it's documented there, it will be found out. And if it exists, and there have been prior incidents with documentation, he's toast from a custody-standpoint (not to mention it sure doesn't help him in the murder case). IMHO.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 01:49 PM
It makes one wonder if there are allegations of abuse by Nancy on behalf of herself and/or the kids and if there are incident(s) documented at Interact. And if there is info and it's documented there, it will be found out. And if it exists, and there have been prior incidents, he's toast from a custody-standpoint (not to mention it sure doesn't help him in the murder case). IMHO.

The judge certainly didn't hesitate to issue the Ex Parte and send LE to collect the children instead of allowing him to turn them over. Sending LE to collect children - an obvious sign of major concern.

fran
09-12-2008, 01:50 PM
I have had no doubt from the time I saw the Rentz's had subpeona'd Interact for the custody issue on 25 July that there is something to it. Brad accuses Susan Crook, basically, of contacting Interact on behalf of Nancy - there has to be a reason why, (if she did) and why Brad wants to know. But funny he didn't subpeona Interact to find out - probably because they have legal grounds to quash a subpeona. Chicken.

IMHO, the way he {hid} after the Renses arrived, showed his true colors, IMHO, what kind of a man he is (NOT!):chicken:

JMHO
fran

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 01:55 PM
IMHO, the way he {hid} after the Renses arrived, showed his true colors, IMHO, what kind of a man he is (NOT!):chicken:

JMHO
fran

I find it interesting that he never bothered to contact the Rentz's at all. When it came to money he would email Gary Rentz but when Nancy goes missing, he is silent ? WTH ?

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 01:59 PM
The judge certainly didn't hesitate to issue the Ex Parte and send LE to collect the children instead of allowing him to turn them over. Sending LE to collect children - an obvious sign of major concern.

Could Brad be an abusive husband (more than financial/controlling) and possibly an abusive father to those darling little girls? Is that where this smoke is leading? To that type of (4 alarm) fire? :furious:

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 02:02 PM
I find it interesting that he never bothered to contact the Rentz's at all. When it came to money he would email Gary Rentz but when Nancy goes missing, he is silent ? WTH ?

Good point, RC. My take on that...Nancy wasn't really 'missing.' She was right where he placed dumped her (lifeless body) on 7/12. He knew exactly where she was. He didn't report her missing to ANYONE. And to him she wasn't 'missing.' IMHO.

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 02:08 PM
When it came to money he would email Gary Rentz but when Nancy goes missing, he is silent ? WTH ?

Not sure I realized this one... do we know who did originally contact the Rentz's? JA? LE? Someone else? [ and when they were contacted]

fran
09-12-2008, 02:12 PM
Not sure I realized this one... do we know who did originally contact the Rentz's? JA? LE? Someone else? [ and when they were contacted]

Hey! Maybe that's in part of WHY they want their long distance records! He might be trying to {figure out} who called them?

Doesn't really matter in the long run, EXCEPT it was NOT him.:eek:

JMHO
fran

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 02:15 PM
Doesn't really matter in the long run, EXCEPT it was NOT him.:eek:


I guess I wasn't sure we knew even this for certain either. (Though I agree it would seem a reasonable assumption)

jmflu
09-12-2008, 02:20 PM
Could Brad be an abusive husband (more than financial/controlling) and possibly an abusive father to those darling little girls? Is that where this smoke is leading? To that type of (4 alarm) fire? :furious:


I remember reading that the friends had not really heard NC complain about him hitting her. Other than that one slap on the leg, I understood the situation to be one of intimidation and control rather than physical abuse.

Anderson
09-12-2008, 02:22 PM
Not sure I realized this one... do we know who did originally contact the Rentz's? JA? LE? Someone else? [ and when they were contacted]

I believe that Brad noted in his original affidavit that he had ASKED her friends to phone her parents; I don't know if he mentioned a specific friend. I always thought this was odd, although he frames this as asking for their help.

Topsail Girl
09-12-2008, 02:23 PM
Hi All,

I do know Jessica Adam has Nancy's parents phone number and I suspect she is the one who called Nancy's parents. I have no proof of that, though, just my opinion.

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 02:27 PM
I believe that Brad noted in his original affidavit that he had ASKED her friends to phone her parents; I don't know if he mentioned a specific friend. I always thought this was odd, although he frames this as asking for their help.

Right - recalling that now too... thanks.

Anderson
09-12-2008, 02:30 PM
Hi All,

I do know Jessica Adam has Nancy's parents phone number and I suspect she is the one who called Nancy's parents. I have no proof of that, though, just my opinion.

It doesn't matter how busy Brad was on July 12th, or how strained the relationship was with her parents or NC, I think that a normal worried husband would have called his wife's parents in this situation. The fact that he didn't call NC's parent's made him look guilty frrom the beginning to me.

fran
09-12-2008, 02:42 PM
I remember reading that the friends had not really heard NC complain about him hitting her. Other than that one slap on the leg, I understood the situation to be one of intimidation and control rather than physical abuse.

IMHO, the fact that he may not have physically abused Nancy up to that point, doesn't really matter. It's the 'threat' of violence that is used, which is just mere seconds away from either happening or not.

I had a friend who's husband used to say, every time they got in a heated argument, "Remember to death do us part."

Another friend's husband used to tell her, "I could make you disappear and no one would miss you for months. They'd never find you."

The first one, did try to kill her and went to jail for it. The second one didn't try to kill her.

On the statistics of murder of pregnant women includes the fact that 1 in 6 pregnant women report abuse. Of those, for 40%, this is the FIRST time of 'physical' abuse.

Nancy slept behind a locked door, in her clothes, with her car keys in her pocket. That tells me, there was the THREAT of violence simmering beneath a 'thin' surface.

Looks like Nancy was correct in her intuition that Brad COULD turn violent, huh? :(

JMHO
fran

jmflu
09-12-2008, 02:45 PM
IMHO, the fact that he may not have physically abused Nancy up to that point, doesn't really matter. It's the 'threat' of violence that is used, which is just mere seconds away from either happening or not.

I had a friend who's husband used to say, every time they got in a heated argument, "Remember to death do us part."

Another friend's husband used to tell her, "I could make you disappear and no one would miss you for months. They'd never find you."


fran

OMG, how HORRIBLE. I can't even IMAGINE staying one moment longer with a man who would utter either of these sentences.

But, I do believe it matters if he abused her or not. Fear is really awful, but it's worse when it's taken out. JMHO.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 02:49 PM
It doesn't matter how busy Brad was on July 12th, or how strained the relationship was with her parents or NC, I think that a normal worried husband would have called his wife's parents in this situation. The fact that he didn't call NC's parent's made him look guilty frrom the beginning to me.


Kinda like riding around in a car looking for a runner on closed trails and never checking or even mentioning checking hospitals given his wife suffered a rather debilitating disease. No need to check those hospitals or to call 911. Good thing Nancy had good friends who even when stressed could think clearly enough to address such issues aye ?

Anderson
09-12-2008, 02:56 PM
Kinda like riding around in a car looking for a runner on closed trails and never checking or even mentioning checking hospitals given his wife suffered a rather debilitating disease. No need to check those hospitals or to call 911. Good thing Nancy had good friends who even when stressed could think clearly enough to address such issues aye ?

Yes, she had/has great friends. I couldn't agree with you more!!:)

fran
09-12-2008, 02:59 PM
OMG, how HORRIBLE. I can't even IMAGINE staying one moment longer with a man who would utter either of these sentences.

But, I do believe it matters if he abused her or not. Fear is really awful, but it's worse when it's taken out. JMHO.

See, we doN't know IF Brad may have made these same type of statements to Nancy. He very well may have. Either that or made lunges towards her without actually touching her. It's the threat that at any given second, can turn into action.

IMHO, that's what happened that night. Something triggered the ultimate violence.

From what I understand, Nancy and Brad had been arguing ealier that Friday, all day I believe, before the BBQ. Then Brad, who normally didn't attend the majority of neighborhood get togethers, per Affidavits, went with Nancy and the girls and from what's been said, Nancy may have embarrassed Brad. Like when he was upset because he, Brad, didn't understand what one of the girls wanted. Nancy told him he needed to 'watch the signs.' or some such thing.

IMO, Brad is NOT one to be corrected, and especially in front of others.

Brad went home early with the girls and Nancy didn't go home for a few more hours. While waiting for Nancy to return home, Brad had plenty of time to simmer and get angrier and angrier.

By the time Nancy got home, he MAY have been at the boiling point. It wouldn't take much to set him off!

Just an idea,
fran

PS....see, it's statements like I mentioned earlier, that these guys make behind closed doors. THAT is why they, the abusers (ala Scott Peterson), say 'No one knows what goes on in this marriage, but you and me.' That is why they isolate their victim, so they won't talk. It's a FACT, I've seen it and heard it, ala second hand, but you get the point.....fran

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 03:10 PM
Fran,

JMO but I think we are going to find there is at least one if not more friend(s) that knew of actual physical abuse that may have occurred on one or more occasions. No basis for that - just a gut feel that goes back to before the hearing of 25 July and the subpeona on Interact by the Rentz's.

fran
09-12-2008, 03:29 PM
Fran,

JMO but I think we are going to find there is at least one if not more friend(s) that knew of actual physical abuse that may have occurred on one or more occasions. No basis for that - just a gut feel that goes back to before the hearing of 25 July and the subpeona on Interact by the Rentz's.

I believe you're right raisincharlie. IMO, every time they throw these affidavits out, they show their hand. They show EVERYONE, including LE, what they're worried about. They are most likely telling LE things they weren't aware of.:bang:

See........these types think they're so clever. Throwing little inuendos out here and there. Like specifying specific back dates they want information from. Like January 2007, for instance. So this means to ME, there's been problems in the Cooper household dating at least back to then.

Oh, and like the 'tire slashing incident,' IIRC, back January 2006. What? They were having problems then? Did he slash her tires in a fit of rage?! I mean, what would that have to do with it?

Me thinks Mr. Cooper is sitting at home worried as can be. By his reqeusting copies of their 'blogging posts,' I believe he's spending too much time on the internet too. LOL, the whole internet community is out to get him!:eek:

:rolleyes:
JMHO
fran

BOO!!!!

:woohoo:
LOL, caught ya!;)

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 03:36 PM
He's his own worst enemy.

always was. always will be.

BTW, so was Scott Peterson, among others.

IMHO.

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 03:36 PM
I believe you're right raisincharlie. IMO, every time they throw these affidavits out, they show their hand. They show EVERYONE, including LE, what they're worried about. They are most likely telling LE things they weren't aware of.:bang:

See........these types think they're so clever. Throwing little inuendos out here and there. Like specifying specific back dates they want information from. Like January 2007, for instance. So this means to ME, there's been problems in the Cooper household dating at least back to then.

Oh, and like the 'tire slashing incident,' IIRC, back January 2006. What? They were having problems then? Did he slash her tires in a fit of rage?! I mean, what would that have to do with it?

Me thinks Mr. Cooper is sitting at home worried as can be. By his reqeusting copies of their 'blogging posts,' I believe he's spending too much time on the internet too. LOL, the whole internet community is out to get him!:eek:

:rolleyes:
JMHO
fran

BOO!!!!

:woohoo:
LOL, caught ya!;)

Well Fran - we know or at least Brad says he and Nancy had no physical relationship for over 2.5 years so Janurary 2006 sounds like a good time to slash tires - would have just found out there was a second child on the way by then. JMO I don't believe he much liked having the first child. I agree, there is a time line line being established here and it goes back a good ways.

I also agree, Brad boy has plenty of time to be checking out the internet blogs and websites that may be pertinent. I'm wondering why he wants all these pictures as well? There is a reason and LE is definitely watching with great interest. You know the old saying - be careful what you wish for - its pretty well true. :)

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 03:42 PM
Having kids can be tough on some men...the focus is typically off the big strong he-man and is focused on the new baby. Some men transition really well to that change; others, not so much. A man with narcissistic tendencies would not enjoy losing attention/affection. IMHO.

jmflu
09-12-2008, 03:45 PM
[QUOTE=raisincharlie;2671786]so Janurary 2006 sounds like a good time to slash tires - QUOTE]-

I'm doubting he slashed her tires, because then he'd just have to go buy new ones and have them put on himself. Since he kept all the money from her. If he wanted to keep her from going someplace, he could just take her keys!

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 03:47 PM
[quote=raisincharlie;2671786]so Janurary 2006 sounds like a good time to slash tires - QUOTE]-

I'm doubting he slashed her tires, because then he'd just have to go buy new ones and have them put on himself. Since he kept all the money from her. If he wanted to keep her from going someplace, he could just take her keys!

I'm not sure we really know when he started keeping money and credit cards from Nancy actually. I can see it being done as intimidation regardless of the costs.

jmflu
09-12-2008, 03:51 PM
[quote=jmflu;2671844]

I'm not sure we really know when he started keeping money and credit cards from Nancy actually. I can see it being done as intimidation regardless of the costs.

And I suppose there is certainly a point at which reason doesn't enter into the scenario, when emotion takes over.

Tridavis
09-12-2008, 03:59 PM
Now that most have convicted BC, I have but one question. How many had already convicted John Ramsey and hung him out to dry? It's hard to deny when it is in the archives!!!!

raisincharlie
09-12-2008, 04:00 PM
Now that most have convicted BC, I have but one question. How many had already convicted John Ramsey and hung him out to dry? It's hard to deny when it is in the archives!!!!

Not me. No conviction of Patsy either

jmflu
09-12-2008, 04:09 PM
Now that most have convicted BC, I have but one question. How many had already convicted John Ramsey and hung him out to dry? It's hard to deny when it is in the archives!!!!

It seems you are inferring that people go with their gut reaction and always blame the parents or spouse without reason.

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 04:19 PM
Now that most have convicted BC, I have but one question. How many had already convicted John Ramsey and hung him out to dry? It's hard to deny when it is in the archives!!!!

I believe BC murdered his wife, but today, with the limited evidence we've been privy to, I would not be able to 'convict' him in a court of law. I've gone on record saying that several times, in fact. I'd have to see all the state's evidence and hear the defense's evidence too. Then I could make up my mind if I thought the DA met their burden of proof. And I know I could make that decision based on the evidence presented regardless of my personal feelings. But on an Internet chat board? Those rules do not apply and we can voice our opinions as long as we stay within the TOS on this forum. :) And that's a big difference.

Anderson
09-12-2008, 05:02 PM
BC’s lawyers could just collect some of the items that are mentioned in the section on media (see text below), because this is information that is in the public domain. However, they are trying to find out if there are more appearances in the works. Are NC’s friends legally required to provide this information? IDK. I think that this is partly an attempt to try to limit visibility of this case in the media, a response to recent media representations of Brad. They must be worried about his public image.

“Any and all contracts, correspondence or other documents regarding any appearance, either already made or scheduled in the future with any media outlet, including but not limited to television and radio regarding Nancy Cooper, Bradley Cooper or their children. This request specifically includes but is not limited to any appearance on “Good Morning America.”

I found this is interesting:

“Any and all correspondence, including but not limited to email, memorandum, letters, notes, text messages, etc, blog posts or chat room conversations with Nancy Cooper or any other person concerned with Nancy Cooper from January 1, 2008 until present”.

I wonder if this focus on web-based material has been relevant in other cases. The law firm could collect one of these items, blog posts, but the rest are of a private nature. The videos and photographs that he mentions elsewhere seem to also be of this nature to me, but I am not sure if it is typical to require witnesses to provide this information or what it would mean if they refuse in a legal context. This list of items would also include posts on WS (chat room conversations). I also wonder if lawyers associated with NC’s friends may be able to argue that chat room anonymity should be respected. I don’t know what the legal implications are, but I gather that NC’s friends will have to respond to the subpoena in some way. The Wake Family Law Group is working on behalf of Brett Adams. Will all of NC’s friends that have been subpoenaed need to respond in documents that will then be released to the public? If there are more documents released, then this could be drawn out in the media. That would possibly help to maintain public concern for the murder.

jumpstreet
09-12-2008, 05:09 PM
This list of items would also include posts on WS (chat room conversations). I also wonder if lawyers associated with NC’s friends may be able to argue that chat room anonymity should be respected. I don’t know what the legal implications are, but I gather that NC’s friends will have to respond to subpoena in some way.

Heh heh... so depending on how these subpoena's play out, and what the judge decides w.r.t. the appeals, we may at last find out if there's any overlap between the posters here on WS, and those listed on the subpeona's/affidavits. That should really be interesting. :)

Anyway... gotta run now... gotta go meet with my attorn..... uh... "friends" about something. ;)

Fuquaylj
09-12-2008, 05:26 PM
This has probably been said as I haven't read throught this entire thread, but I think what they've done is actually very smart as far as custody goes....they're saying "you've made all these accusations in your affidavits, now give me one shread of evidence to back any of it up". My bet is that there is none...JMO of course. I do think BC probably did it, by the way, but do not think they had a case to remove his children. I do think it is very unfortunate for NC friends who only love her to be drug through the mud!

Anderson
09-12-2008, 05:30 PM
I gather that NCís friends will have to respond to the subpoena in some way. The Wake Family Law Group is working on behalf of Brett Adams. Will all of NCís friends that have been subpoenaed need to respond in documents that will then be released to the public? If there are more documents released, then this could be drawn out in the media.

After looking further, I guess the objections are already embedded in these documents.

fran
09-12-2008, 05:36 PM
Now that most have convicted BC, I have but one question. How many had already convicted John Ramsey and hung him out to dry? It's hard to deny when it is in the archives!!!!

Ehhh......FWIW, I have at least ONE post on the Ramsey forum, and it said I didn't think the parents did it. But what do I know?

;)

fran

Star12
09-12-2008, 05:38 PM
Isn't SC an attorney? There is a Susan Davis Crooks that works at Womble Carlyle. I thought her name sounded awfully familiar.

SleuthyGal
09-12-2008, 05:47 PM
Their focus on web blogs, emails and chat room convos is interesting, even if it happens to be standard verbiage. And yes, there is likely some crossover to the WS community.

The Saint
09-12-2008, 05:55 PM
it is possible that nancy's friends were keeping diaries and collecting evidence to aid
nancy during her divorce from brad (ie. brad's abusive, perhaps violent, controlling behavior).

this could be a serious defense blunder. the demand for the private information
from nancy's friends only confirms what a jerk brad is and how difficult it must have been for nancy to have been married to him.

she ended up dead at his hands.

i don't care with whom she was having sex or getting comfort. she needed it. she wasn't getting what she needed from her husband. she isn't the one who murdered someone. brad is...

Anderson
09-12-2008, 06:52 PM
I do think that Kurtz and Blum are very interested in finding ways to reduce the "media scrutiny" associated with Brad:

"Meanwhile, Kurtz said the next step in the process is a show-cause hearing, during which time the slain woman's friends will have to show why they shouldn't comply with his client's request.

'What we've asked for isn't extraordinary in a custody case," said Kurtz, "let alone in a custody case with so many other issues and such high media scrutiny.'"

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=294b3eed-7b9f-40b8-9bc5-6118662c8004

Anderson
09-12-2008, 07:01 PM
Their focus on web blogs, emails and chat room convos is interesting, even if it happens to be standard verbiage. And yes, there is likely some crossover to the WS community.

Although I doubt it, I wonder if Brad has been posting somewhere. If so, then perhaps his posts could be used against him in the future, if and when there is a trial. It may also be a possibility that this would be relevant for the custody issue.

However, RKAB mentioned that Brad would have his computer "all wired up" or something along those lines. I gather that means that he would be putting guards in place to protect his anonymity. In that case there wouldn't be a trail. Hopefully NC's friends are also finding ways to not leave a trail. However, I am still unclear on how this information is relevant and can be used.

fran
09-13-2008, 12:36 AM
FWIW, most people do NOT keep copies of 'chat conversations.' So, all her friends need to do is say they don't have it. IF there was a conversation in chat on Websleuths, NOT to worry, Tricia has a couple of attorneys of her own! This is not new territory for her.

As far as emails, etc,....most people do NOT keep those either. So that point is most likely moot also.

Now as far as their phone records,..........well,.........what does that have to do with Brad Cooper being an unfit father? As far as them maybe talking to Nancy's family in Canada, well duh!!! IMO, there's no reason for them to have their personal phone records.

Text messages? LOL, as if they'd keep them. Sorry guy, don't have 'em.

So, over how many years the friends may have a picture or five or six that include Brad? Big deal......They can email them to his attorney through their attorney.

As far as the correspondence between each other, what does that have to do with the case? Besides, they didn't keep copies. pfftt

AS for Jessica and Brett and the state of THEIR marriage. NONE of their business! period, end of story!!! IF either one of them had an affair, which they state they didn't, what does that have to do with Brad being unfit? They're NOT attempting to get custody of the girls, Nancy's FAMILY is. :rolleyes:

This is about BRAD and him being UNFIT to care for those precious little girls. This has NOTHING to do with Nancy's friends.

Nancy's family is attempting to gain custody. Brad already trashed Nancy's twin sister in his original affidavits. Why didn't he follow up with that? Why go after Nancy's friends?

Why not request work records of the FAMILY that's attempting to get custody. He complained in his affidavit that they all worked and wouldn't be around to constantly care for the girls.

Telling, IMHO, that the defendent goes after the friends of his MURDERED wife, just because they stood up for someone who's been permanently silenced.

ALSO, FWIW, bet Brad was REALLY surprised when Nancy's friends stepped forward. He probably thought NO ONE KNEW the cra* he dished out to his poor wife behind that closed door.

Surprise, surprise, he didn't have ULTIMATE control of Nancy after all, did he? Course he found that out when she decided she'd had enough of his BS and was going to leave and take the girls. Guess he showed her though! (imo)

fran

PS....IF he wants any posts on Websleuths, it's a public forum, he can get them himself! "Copy and Paste":crazy:

PPS...I wouldn't put it past Brad to post anonymously on the internet. He's not at UPFRONT type person, IMHO. More of a 'stab in the back' type of guy....Just ask Nancy! oh, wait, we can't... :(

ncnative
09-13-2008, 12:01 PM
FWIW, most people do NOT keep copies of 'chat conversations.' So, all her friends need to do is say they don't have it. IF there was a conversation in chat on Websleuths, NOT to worry, Tricia has a couple of attorneys of her own! This is not new territory for her.

As far as emails, etc,....most people do NOT keep those either. So that point is most likely moot also.

Now as far as their phone records,..........well,.........what does that have to do with Brad Cooper being an unfit father? As far as them maybe talking to Nancy's family in Canada, well duh!!! IMO, there's no reason for them to have their personal phone records.

Text messages? LOL, as if they'd keep them. Sorry guy, don't have 'em.

So, over how many years the friends may have a picture or five or six that include Brad? Big deal......They can email them to his attorney through their attorney.

As far as the correspondence between each other, what does that have to do with the case? Besides, they didn't keep copies. pfftt

AS for Jessica and Brett and the state of THEIR marriage. NONE of their business! period, end of story!!! IF either one of them had an affair, which they state they didn't, what does that have to do with Brad being unfit? They're NOT attempting to get custody of the girls, Nancy's FAMILY is. :rolleyes:

This is about BRAD and him being UNFIT to care for those precious little girls. This has NOTHING to do with Nancy's friends.

Nancy's family is attempting to gain custody. Brad already trashed Nancy's twin sister in his original affidavits. Why didn't he follow up with that? Why go after Nancy's friends?

Why not request work records of the FAMILY that's attempting to get custody. He complained in his affidavit that they all worked and wouldn't be around to constantly care for the girls.

Telling, IMHO, that the defendent goes after the friends of his MURDERED wife, just because they stood up for someone who's been permanently silenced.

ALSO, FWIW, bet Brad was REALLY surprised when Nancy's friends stepped forward. He probably thought NO ONE KNEW the cra* he dished out to his poor wife behind that closed door.

Surprise, surprise, he didn't have ULTIMATE control of Nancy after all, did he? Course he found that out when she decided she'd had enough of his BS and was going to leave and take the girls. Guess he showed her though! (imo)

fran

PS....IF he wants any posts on Websleuths, it's a public forum, he can get them himself! "Copy and Paste":crazy:

PPS...I wouldn't put it past Brad to post anonymously on the internet. He's not at UPFRONT type person, IMHO. More of a 'stab in the back' type of guy....Just ask Nancy! oh, wait, we can't... :(

Wow. Whew. Thanks Fran. "...stab in the back type of guy...just ask Nancy!" I would be afraid if I were some of Nancy's friends, too. Or, if I were RKAB. :no: Won't they EVER get this case (and Michelle Young's) over the hill??

fran
09-13-2008, 12:30 PM
[/B]

Wow. Whew. Thanks Fran. "...stab in the back type of guy...just ask Nancy!" I would be afraid if I were some of Nancy's friends, too. Or, if I were RKAB. :no: Won't they EVER get this case (and Michelle Young's) over the hill??

Hi ncnative! :)

You know, I have to believe LE will eventually solve both of these cases. It may not be today or tomorrow, but in the end, I HAVE to believe there will be justice for these two poor ladies and many more that have gone before and after them.

In the OT thread, I posted a NC case that happened just this week and the guy is already in jail. They're still looking for Kelly Morris down in Stem, but it's pretty obvious what happened to her. :( They just have to FIND her! (Topsail Girl is assisting in the search, btw) FWIW, her car, with keys, purse, and cell phone were found in a similar location as Nancy, an undeveloped housing area. Must be a popular type spot!:mad:

As for Brad intimidating Nancy's friends and his 'former' friends into NOT talking to LE about HIM, he needs to get over himself. This is NOT about HIM, this is about NANCY and MURDER. THIS is NOT about CONTROLLING someone or something, this is about SOLVING a MURDER. This is SERIOUS stuff. Bullying isn't going to cut it here, IMHO.

Which brings me back to the subject of this particular thread. The current court case should be for information regarding his being an unfit parent. But I fail to see what Nancy's friends 'personal lives' have to do with Brad's dispute with Nancy's parents. His beef on THIS case is with THEM, not the Friends of Nancy!.....................THAT is UNLESS he has SOMETHING to hide!:doh:

LE is loving this. Keep it coming Brad. You may have just given LE a MOTIVE! to go along with that MEANS and OPPORTUNITY! Your narcissim is showing! :loser:

JMHO
fran

ncnative
09-13-2008, 02:21 PM
So Topsail Girl is along for the search of the young woman in Stem, NC? It is SO muggy and hot outside, good luck to them. Remember after Hurricane Fran, how muggy and hot it was? Then, it was unbearable plus, we had half our roof gone, so add mosquitos and squirrels, etc. to the atmosphere.

Brad Cooper must have taken a trip somewhere, since his car has been backed into the same place in front of his garage for several days now. First time I've seen it backed in. He should have plenty of time to read about himself on the news, message boards and the like.

I re-read a few affidavits today. I had forgotten the ones who said Nancy mentioned "brown bugs in Brad's mattress", along with his dirty sheets. Bed bugs/lice? It's easy to bring them home, especially a traveller like Brad who "gets around", shall we say?

gritguy
09-14-2008, 10:42 PM
Isn't SC an attorney? There is a Susan Davis Crooks that works at Womble Carlyle. I thought her name sounded awfully familiar.

My old firm...

jumpstreet
09-14-2008, 11:17 PM
My old firm...

Cool. Do you know if the SC that is (apparently) an attorney there is the same one subpoenaed by BC recently... or... don't know?

gritguy
09-15-2008, 09:37 PM
Cool. Do you know if the SC that is (apparently) an attorney there is the same one subpoenaed by BC recently... or... don't know?

I don't know, but I did see the original document and then the motion to quash say Susan Crook whereas the WCSR lawyer is Susan Crooks. Perhaps a different person, unless that name is corrected elsewhere.