612 users online (61 members and 551 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    431

    Question Erased?

    Hi! This is my first post on this forum, but I have been reading every thread regarding this case and I am very impressed with the high level of “sleuthing” that you all do! It’s certainly telling that the media looks to this site for information.

    I absolutely believe that Brad is the murderer and have from the get go. The big question for me is was it premeditated?

    I just finished reading an excellent book, Erased, by Marilee Strong…read the following from her website, and see if you think it might fit Brad Cooper as it did Scott Peterson, Michael Peterson, Mark Hacking, etc. (I did the red highlighting.)

    "Most men who kill their wives or partners do so recklessly, in the midst of a rapidly escalating and violent confrontation, and after months, years, or decades of physical and emotional abuse inflicted on their victim. These kinds of killers have been studied and researched and categorized, although they have not received the amount of research or attention that much smaller, though more sensational groups (serial killers, for example) have received.

    But a subgroup of domestic homicides are committed by men who are not driven by the "heat of emotion" by instead by an utterly cold, calculated design. These are the cases I call "eraser killings." Based on research from about 100 cases (only about 40 of which are actually included in my book) I have drawn a psychological portrait based on the common features we are able to tease out of the data. These killers represent a previously unrecognized subset of intimate partner murderers, different in distinct ways from other domestic killers:

    • The eraser killer is a master of deceit and expert manipulator.
    His killing is carried out in total secrecy (unlike many domestic homicides which often are committed even though there are witnesses present) and then very highly “staged,” to use the investigators’ term for a crime scene which is arranged like a stage set to create an illusion intended to confuse the police and send them down a wrong trail.
    • Most domestic homicides involve jealousy, money, another woman, or explosive and vengeful rage felt by the killer because the woman is planning to leave him. While there subsidiary motives involving monetary gain or other women, the eraser killer is not “driven” by these things. His real motivations stem from the unique psychology of men with a particular set of dangerous traits which psychologists have recently named “the Dark Triad.”
    • He is killing because the woman in question has become inconvenient. In his eyes, she no longer meets his needs or stands in the way of something he wants. She is not allowed to leave him or take away anything he holds dear, be it a home, or children, or the lifestyle he has come to enjoy. He will only let her go on his deadly, unilateral terms.
    • He plans his killing well in advance, once again distinguishing him from the standard wife-killer. Far fewer than half of all wife-killings are actually planned in advance of the final encounter according to available research.
    • Eraser killers exhibit key elements of psychopathy such as lack of empathy and lack of remorse, but they do not necessarily rank in the high levels of psychopathy the way a serial killer or sexual sadist does. The eraser killer’s personality traits may be more usefully described as high levels of narcissism and a high level of Machiavellianism, blended with the psychopathic traits. (As will be explained in the next chapter, these three traits are closely linked, partly overlapping, and often shared in eraser killers.)
    • The eraser killer will exhibit neither mourning, nor real signs of emotional loss, and will almost always exhibit strangely inappropriate behavior and speech after the mysterious death of his wife or girlfriend. (Sometimes he even starts speaking about her in the past tense before he has killed her.) At the same time he will be using his full array of skills to direct any inquiries or police investigation toward fictitious threats and other suspects even if he himself is participating in the “search” for the missing woman.
    • He may have hidden his contempt for the object of his enmity, especially if doing so gives him tactical advantage when the moment of attack arrives. But once he makes up his mind to erase her, his determination is all consuming. When the act begins—once he puts his hands around her throat or strikes her as she sleeps with a heavy object—there is no turning back, no hesitation, no twinge of conscience or compassion.
    • He is generally intelligent, though he also greatly overestimates his talents. He believes he is smarter and better than the rest of us, certainly smarter than the police and more deserving in all ways than his victim. He often has considerable familiarity with the law and how police work. He may have read up on these matters diligently to help him with his plan. Or he may have used his unusual ability for absorbing things around him, observing with the cold eye of a lizard in the desert how other predators kill and get away with it, because getting away with murder is his goal.
    • To achieve that goal he may follow one of two distinct strategies. Either he can erase the victim’s body by destroying it entirely or secreting it where it won’t be found, or, he can rearrange the crime or stage a wholly false scenario to erase all connection between himself and any criminal act. Either way, he appears to remain free and clear of any involvement in his act."




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hillsborough NC
    Posts
    346
    Welcome Susieclue! Love your nic! OMG does this describe Scott P to a t, right down to thinking he is smarter than everyone else (greatly exaggerating his actual intelligence. ) Don't think I know enough about BC yet, although on the surface, he seems to fit this profile too. If he did in fact kill NC, I think he did it so that she could not leave him and so that he would not have to "lose". Time will tell, hope I am wrong.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    Hi again SusieClue!

    Yes, I think at the end of the day, we may have another Erased case.

    Thanks for sharing,
    fran

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    14,796
    I found your first post to be very, very informative. I went to the blog site and read a lot about other cases as well. Totally interesting and the name "Eraser Killers" fits that low down population of killers that often do away and often get away with their crimes. Welcome aboard! I do hope to hear more from you.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,078
    I don't think the crime fit the definition of 'eraser killer' because there are 2 kids and (thank goodness) they are alive and well.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    431
    It DOES seem that most of the Eraser killers kill their pregnant wives, BUT some are also trying to get rid of a problem...something that forces them to give up their lifestyle - such as having to pay outrageous alimony and child support, being forced to give up kids, etc. This brings up another point. The separation agreement (which was not signed and therefore, not agreed upon) stated they were to share joint custody however, the terms were much different than what I think of as joint custody. In short, she would have moved to Canada, and he could have them for alternating weekends...if he were not able to travel to Canada, he would be responsible for flying the kids and Nancy down to NC and paying for all of the airfare, Nancy's lodging, food, etc. This would be a ridiculous amount of money that I doubt he could afford once he paid for alimony, child support, his rent for his new pad, etc. So it says JOINT but in reality it isn't. Truth be told, I felt a little sorry for him when I read the separation agreement document. That said, of course he and his lawyer would have countered and the terms would be revised. But I could see it inflaming someone that is so controlling. My husband would FLIP at a document like this. IS THAT AN EXCUSE TO KILL her? Absolutely not.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    middle tennessee
    Posts
    1,091
    Susie I think that's so fascinating. I'm definitely going to be reading more on her site. Thanks!

    I guess I can welcome you even though I'm new here too.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,954
    We don't have that much info yet but right now, I don't believe Brad is an 'eraser' killer. Jason Young, yes but not Brad.
    In response to part of your post about Nancy moving to Canada etc., in Brad's affidavit he said he had applied and gone to interviews in Canada because they both had agreed it would be better for the children if he lived there as well.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    Quote Originally Posted by SusieClue View Post
    It DOES seem that most of the Eraser killers kill their pregnant wives, BUT some are also trying to get rid of a problem...something that forces them to give up their lifestyle - such as having to pay outrageous alimony and child support, being forced to give up kids, etc. This brings up another point. The separation agreement (which was not signed and therefore, not agreed upon) stated they were to share joint custody however, the terms were much different than what I think of as joint custody. In short, she would have moved to Canada, and he could have them for alternating weekends...if he were not able to travel to Canada, he would be responsible for flying the kids and Nancy down to NC and paying for all of the airfare, Nancy's lodging, food, etc. This would be a ridiculous amount of money that I doubt he could afford once he paid for alimony, child support, his rent for his new pad, etc. So it says JOINT but in reality it isn't. Truth be told, I felt a little sorry for him when I read the separation agreement document. That said, of course he and his lawyer would have countered and the terms would be revised. But I could see it inflaming someone that is so controlling. My husband would FLIP at a document like this. IS THAT AN EXCUSE TO KILL her? Absolutely not.
    FWIW, at the time Nancy had the separation papers drawn up, Brad had already told her that she could move back to Canada at the end of summer. Then he changed it to June, then he decided she could leave by the end of April, take the kids to Canada and he would never have to see any of them again!

    Nancy says ok, the SECOND Divorce Separation Draft was emailed to Brad from Nancy or her lawyer and days before she was due to leave he took away the children's passports. He suddenly decides he wants to take one child and she can have the other. Ehhh.......no..........so he decides they are going to work it out (ehh, yeah right, that is lawyer talk, imo, to make nice so you don't have to pay so much!), oh,..........and while he's at it, NO more money for you, remove name from bank account, cancel credit cards, minimal $$ for food, (which is why she ate dinner at friends (with the kids)).....

    He was trying to ERASE them all. But just Nancy will do. At least now he doesn't have to give up his house, can keep both cars, and his 401K, not to mention the CHILDREN,............oh, and Nancy won't be needing that 8 years of alimony.

    Nancy is officially erased!

    JMHO
    fran

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    Quote Originally Posted by jilly View Post
    We don't have that much info yet but right now, I don't believe Brad is an 'eraser' killer. Jason Young, yes but not Brad.
    In response to part of your post about Nancy moving to Canada etc., in Brad's affidavit he said he had applied and gone to interviews in Canada because they both had agreed it would be better for the children if he lived there as well.
    Ok, no offense, but BRAD said he'd applied and gone to interview in Canada?
    Sorry, but LOL.....
    We've already proved that he lied on the affidavit in that he WAS still training for the Ironman as stated on his Website. Or was the Website a lie and the affidavit was truth?

    It's also been noted that although HE claims, per the affidavit, that he'd done away with the VoIP in the home at Nancy's request. As an employee of Cisco, he's allowed a FREE VoIP in the home, a necessity for working out of his home. Easy to hook up the home phone to the system.......DID he really take the home system off the VoIP as he said, or was it still connected so he could trace and track all of Nancy's calls from work,.........and cause the nuisance HANG UPS that her friend experienced often when she talked to Nancy at home?

    When PROOF isn't needed, lie. Affidavits stood on their own, no PROOF necessary.

    He was counting on that.

    JMHO
    fran


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by fran View Post
    *snip*
    We've already proved that he lied on the affidavit in that he WAS still training for the Ironman as stated on his Website. Or was the Website a lie and the affidavit was truth?
    *snip*

    JMHO
    fran
    Um, I thought the website had no activity since January? Is that not the case? Didn't look to me like he got much training in in preparation for the Ironman as he never seem to post anything after January.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    Quote Originally Posted by cassadinechik View Post
    Um, I thought the website had no activity since January? Is that not the case? Didn't look to me like he got much training in in preparation for the Ironman as he never seem to post anything after January.
    Oh, yeah, that's right. No activity on his website since January, 2008, right? At which time he SAID he was preparing for the Ironman in July 2008?

    Oh, wait............his 'rebuttal affidavit' dated in July 2008, he, BRAD, swore he hadn't trained since June 2007.

    Soooooo............which one is true?

    Did he lie on his website and he wasn't in fact training?

    OR is he lying in his recent rebuttal affidavit that he hasn't trained since June, 2007?

    Just sayin'

    fran

    PS....you know the old saying, "The devil is in the details." fran

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    This seems as good a place as any to discuss this. Here's some starteling facts. Old report, I believe. Maybe the figures are higher now. Sure seems that way, doesn't it?

    fran


    Domestic Homicides

    On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.16

    Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men.17
    Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause18 , and evidence exists that a significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners.19
    Research suggests that injury related deaths, including homicide and suicide, account for approximately one-third of all maternal mortality cases, while medical reasons make up the rest. But, homicide is the leading cause of death overall for pregnant women, followed by cancer, acute and chronic respiratory conditions, motor vehicle collisions and drug overdose, peripartum and postpartum cardiomyopthy, and suicide.20


    http://endabuse.org/resources/facts/

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    Ok, don't know if I should have started a new thread, but whatever.
    This is interesting.

    Does this ring a bell?

    IMO
    fran

    Financial abuse can entrap women

    Economic control can be hard to break

    Debra Smith worked hard as a certified nurse’s assistant. But every two weeks, she would bring home her paycheck, pay for child care, then turn the rest over to the husband she said emotionally and verbally abused her.

    “He would give me an allowance of about [$10 per week],” said the 41-year-old. “And I had to account for every penny.”

    Eager to find a way out, she began taking courses online. She did well, receiving scholarships and grants, but said she had to forfeit them when her husband canceled their Internet service.

    Without a cent to her name, leaving her husband seemed almost impossible. But with the help of police and local nonprofit agencies following a physical altercation, she was eventually able to have her husband evicted from their home.

    (Debra Smith is not her real name. The News is using a pseudonym to protect her from possible retribution.)

    Only after her husband’s eviction did she find out about the scores of credit cards and bank loans he obtained during their 14-year marriage.

    “I have no idea how that is going to affect my credit score,” Smith said.

    <<<<<<<<full article at link>>>>>>>>>>>


    http://www.buffalonews.com/145/story/388865.html

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by fran View Post
    Ok, don't know if I should have started a new thread, but whatever.
    This is interesting.

    Does this ring a bell?

    IMO
    fran

    Financial abuse can entrap women

    Economic control can be hard to break

    Debra Smith worked hard as a certified nurse’s assistant. But every two weeks, she would bring home her paycheck, pay for child care, then turn the rest over to the husband she said emotionally and verbally abused her.

    “He would give me an allowance of about [$10 per week],” said the 41-year-old. “And I had to account for every penny.”

    Eager to find a way out, she began taking courses online. She did well, receiving scholarships and grants, but said she had to forfeit them when her husband canceled their Internet service.

    Without a cent to her name, leaving her husband seemed almost impossible. But with the help of police and local nonprofit agencies following a physical altercation, she was eventually able to have her husband evicted from their home.

    (Debra Smith is not her real name. The News is using a pseudonym to protect her from possible retribution.)

    Only after her husband’s eviction did she find out about the scores of credit cards and bank loans he obtained during their 14-year marriage.

    “I have no idea how that is going to affect my credit score,” Smith said.

    <<<<<<<<full article at link>>>>>>>>>>>


    http://www.buffalonews.com/145/story/388865.html
    Thanks fran.

    That really cheered me up.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-26-2013, 11:30 PM

Tags for this Thread