Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #12

[fran]

Raisincharlie brings up the phone call from home to Brad that morning. IMO, this is his j o b………………could he change the data? Maybe? It COULD possibly take an extra step to discover any disception. Hopefully LE is smart enough to realize IF there is any hanky panky with computer info and phone records, for THIS case, first blush is not necessarily the answer! Extra research and detective work MAY be in order here.

ALSO, IF LE finds any hanky panky with the phone and computer records, bank records, etc.,............well, sorry folks, that points toward premediation, imo.

There's also been lots of discussion about Nancy's cell phone. I think it's been established she didn't normally take her cell when she went running. So her not having it with her, was her normal MO, IMO.

IF Nancy’s cell phone was in her purse, it was found in the car. FACT, the purse was found in the car. IF the cell was in her purse, assumption it was in the car.

Charilie, I agree, she would NOT leave her cell in the car.
Does anyone really think that a woman who had indicated to friends that she was ‘fearful’ of her husband, slept in a LOCKED room WITH her children, FULLY CLOTHED, WITH car keys in her pocket, would leave her cell phone in the car? Purse, maybe,(for fast get away), safety measure, such as a phone to call 911, leave in the car?
Ehhh……..no…………….KISS……….Keep it simple (silly).

IMO, Nancy's cell phone is a redherring. NOT a factor in her disappearance, ehhh. UNLESS it WAS found in the car. THEN, all bets are off as to WHY? it would be there, imo.

Oh, yeah, and anyone wanting to say, 'Well yeah, Nancy told her friend she was afraid of her husband and slept behind a locked door. But, Brad's friends say she embellished.'

Well, my anwer is, "He said she exaggerated and her friends say she was afraid. Granted here-say, but, but, but..........SHE is dead. Pointing toward the direction that she was NOT only NOT lying, she MAY very well have been RIGHT!''

Just sayin'
fran

 

[Just the Fax]

There's also been lots of discussion about Nancy's cell phone. I think it's been established she didn't normally take her cell when she went running. So her not having it with her, was her normal MO, IMO.

IF Nancy’s cell phone was in her purse, it was found in the car. FACT, the purse was found in the car. IF the cell was in her purse, assumption it was in the car.

Charilie, I agree, she would NOT leave her cell in the car.
Does anyone really think that a woman who had indicated to friends that she was ‘fearful’ of her husband, slept in a LOCKED room WITH her children, FULLY CLOTHED, WITH car keys in her pocket, would leave her cell phone in the car? Purse, maybe,(for fast get away), safety measure, such as a phone to call 911, leave in the car?
Ehhh……..no…………….KISS……….Keep it simple (silly).

IMO, Nancy's cell phone is a redherring. NOT a factor in her disappearance, ehhh. UNLESS it WAS found in the car. THEN, all bets are off as to WHY? it would be there, imo.

Just sayin'
fran

Fran, I posted this earlier. Since you did not comment, I suppose you missed it. You may or may not agree

Concerning her cell phone. It was said yesterday that her cell phone was in her car based on the 911 caller's information. I re-listened to the call and think she may have meant it was actually in the house when she said 'there'.

"Her car is in the driveway and her cell cell phone is there" ...... notice she did not say 'in there'

Sure, that could go either way, but it seems more logical to think she meant 'house' when talking about the driveway and car.

 

[Just the Fax]

I missed it, where was it stated as fact her purse was in her car ?

 

[fran]

I missed it, where was it stated as fact her purse was in her car ?

JTF, I don't keep notes, LOL, and I'm terrible with links. It was in one of the earlier press releases. I believe it was something about Brad locating her (can't remember the designer brand, but expensive) purse in her car and handing it over to LE, or something like that. IF you want me to check, I'll try to find it.

fran

 

[Blondieskatz]

I wonder when Jessica called 911 and was sitting in front of the house did she get out and look in the car. If she did maybe she saw the cell phone sitting in the car. If not there would be no way of knowing if the phone was in the car or in the house.

 

[reddress58]

I don't know reddress58, seems you are our poster that would be the best expert on dresses

Long, funny story how that user name originated. Had to do with my own personal bit of sleuthing. Maybe someday...

 

[reddress58]

Fran, I posted this earlier. Since you did not comment, I suppose you missed it. You may or may not agree

Concerning her cell phone. It was said yesterday that her cell phone was in her car based on the 911 caller's information. I re-listened to the call and think she may have meant it was actually in the house when she said 'there'.

"Her car is in the driveway and her cell cell phone is there" ...... notice she did not say 'in there'

Sure, that could go either way, but it seems more logical to think she meant 'house' when talking about the driveway and car.

That is interesting. JA doesn't live in the same neighborhood. Yesterday we were assuming BC told her where the cell was; but for JA to say her car is in the driveway means she must be driving by and looking while she's talking to the po-lice. Which means she may also have peaked inside and saw the cell phone. HMMMMMM.

 

[fran]

SleuthyGal post 207, previous thread

“Ya know...it's occurred to me in the past that CELL PHONES is where people who commit crimes often get caught. Cause they're making calls on the move, or, in Scott Peterson's case, they're making calls right near their own home...but in any case their movements are able to be tracked by triangulating the cell signal to the phone and tower.

It's like these folks can't help themselves...they have to be on their phones, making calls. They would have done themselves better evidence-wise by staying off the darn cell phones altogether...turning OFF the phone and just being out of touch for whatever length of time.

I can't tell you how many crimes I've heard about where cell phone records ultimately play a large part in helping to nail a suspect.”


Wonder if he awoke the children up in the middle of the night to go for a ride? Say 4 a.m.? IMO, at 4 a.m., there’s less likelihood of anyone seeing him leave the home. Even a neighborhood party the night before would have most likely been completely over hours before and all those attending asleep. Maybe only asleep for a few hours by that time, but 4 a.m. is a good hour to leave home without being noticed. Better than 2 a.m. or 6 a.m., IMO.


I sooooo hope that IF there is a 4 a.m. visit to the store, LE has got him on tape! I don’t care what he was buying, diapers. It doesn’t matter. He said 6 a.m. and told a whole story with it. IF it’s proven a lie, why? THIS IS IMPORTANT. Because it would mean he was out two hours earlier than he’s reported. Why? THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Just think about this, IF this was premeditated, he COULD have used his knowledge from his j o b to his advantage. STAGING the phone call.

IF he did do this crime, the phone calls after 6 a.m. that day AND the 4 a.m. visit to the store will be two highly damning pieces of evidence. ONE that he was out at 4 a.m., the phone call after 6 a.m., IF it's him will show planning. IF there was a fight, and IF he's guilty, there would NOT be this big elaborate scheme to hide his tracks.

JMHO
fran

 

[carolinalady]

I found this posted on the City Data forum, Cary, NC. Page 41, post # 408

I have no idea who this is, but they were a member before the NC case so they didn't join just to state this. Is this why she was partially clothed?


07-26-2008, 07:00 PM
seajoy88

Member


I agree that even though they say it was not a random killing, the fact that no one has been arrested is a little unnerving.

A friend of mine that lives in the Lochmere area reported information to a detective the day Nancy went missing. While my friend was on her jog that day, she saw a woman by Nancy's description around 8am. She described an item of clothing this woman was wearing that was of interest to the detective. Whether this is a coincidence or not, an item of clothing as my friend described was found in the woods. It was not an item of clothing that was known to the public. I have no idea why the police would not release that information, but maybe it was a false lead. Either way, it's just enough information to make my friend stop running alone even if the police say they don't believe the murder was random.

In my search last night for the news report to indicate who would have jurisdication, I did hear a report prior to Nancy's body being found. It did say that LE had collected some items of interest, but there was no indication of what those items were and may have had absolutely zero to do w/ this case.

I'll go back and see if I can find that report.

 

[carolinalady]

SleuthyGal post 207, previous thread

“Ya know...it's occurred to me in the past that CELL PHONES is where people who commit crimes often get caught. Cause they're making calls on the move, or, in Scott Peterson's case, they're making calls right near their own home...but in any case their movements are able to be tracked by triangulating the cell signal to the phone and tower.

It's like these folks can't help themselves...they have to be on their phones, making calls. They would have done themselves better evidence-wise by staying off the darn cell phones altogether...turning OFF the phone and just being out of touch for whatever length of time.

I can't tell you how many crimes I've heard about where cell phone records ultimately play a large part in helping to nail a suspect.”


Wonder if he awoke the children up in the middle of the night to go for a ride? Say 4 a.m.? IMO, at 4 a.m., there’s less likelihood of anyone seeing him leave the home. Even a neighborhood party the night before would have most likely been completely over hours before and all those attending asleep. Maybe only asleep for a few hours by that time, but 4 a.m. is a good hour to leave home without being noticed. Better than 2 a.m. or 6 a.m., IMO.


I sooooo hope that IF there is a 4 a.m. visit to the store, LE has got him on tape! I don’t care what he was buying, diapers. It doesn’t matter. He said 6 a.m. and told a whole story with it. IF it’s proven a lie, why? THIS IS IMPORTANT. Because it would mean he was out two hours earlier than he’s reported. Why? THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Just think about this, IF this was premeditated, he COULD have used his knowledge from his j o b to his advantage. STAGING the phone call.

IF he did do this crime, the phone calls after 6 a.m. that day AND the 4 a.m. visit to the store will be two highly damning pieces of evidence. ONE that he was out at 4 a.m., the phone call after 6 a.m., IF it's him will show planning. IF there was a fight, and IF he's guilty, there would NOT be this big elaborate scheme to hide his tracks.

JMHO
fran

I thought it was established that they no longer had Cisco VoIP at their home. And another poster said even if he did have the VoIP system and somehow altered calls, there would be a record of it.

 

[reddress58]

SleuthyGal post 207, previous thread

“Ya know...it's occurred to me in the past that CELL PHONES is where people who commit crimes often get caught. Cause they're making calls on the move, or, in Scott Peterson's case, they're making calls right near their own home...but in any case their movements are able to be tracked by triangulating the cell signal to the phone and tower.

It's like these folks can't help themselves...they have to be on their phones, making calls. They would have done themselves better evidence-wise by staying off the darn cell phones altogether...turning OFF the phone and just being out of touch for whatever length of time.

I can't tell you how many crimes I've heard about where cell phone records ultimately play a large part in helping to nail a suspect.”


Wonder if he awoke the children up in the middle of the night to go for a ride? Say 4 a.m.? IMO, at 4 a.m., there’s less likelihood of anyone seeing him leave the home. Even a neighborhood party the night before would have most likely been completely over hours before and all those attending asleep. Maybe only asleep for a few hours by that time, but 4 a.m. is a good hour to leave home without being noticed. Better than 2 a.m. or 6 a.m., IMO.


I sooooo hope that IF there is a 4 a.m. visit to the store, LE has got him on tape! I don’t care what he was buying, diapers. It doesn’t matter. He said 6 a.m. and told a whole story with it. IF it’s proven a lie, why? THIS IS IMPORTANT. Because it would mean he was out two hours earlier than he’s reported. Why? THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Just think about this, IF this was premeditated, he COULD have used his knowledge from his j o b to his advantage. STAGING the phone call.

IF he did do this crime, the phone calls after 6 a.m. that day AND the 4 a.m. visit to the store will be two highly damning pieces of evidence. ONE that he was out at 4 a.m., the phone call after 6 a.m., IF it's him will show planning. IF there was a fight, and IF he's guilty, there would NOT be this big elaborate scheme to hide his tracks.

JMHO
fran

Fran, Do you really think he'd say 6am in his affidavit if he were actually there at 4 and had heard the rumors that the store had him on video?

 

[Just the Fax]

That is interesting. JA doesn't live in the same neighborhood. Yesterday we were assuming BC told her where the cell was; but for JA to say her car is in the driveway means she must be driving by and looking while she's talking to the po-lice. Which means she may also have peaked inside and saw the cell phone. HMMMMMM.

Knowing Brad was right inside, I doubt she would get out and peer into her car . After all, she was not chummy with Brad and she would have likely felt very uneasy about that.
However, I do agree she could have driven by and seen the car in the drive.

 

[dyrewolfe]

Knowing Brad was right inside, I doubt she would get out and peer into her car . After all, she was not chummy with Brad and she would have likely felt very uneasy about that.
However, I do agree she could have driven by and seen the car in the drive.

Wasn't he supposedly out looking for her at the time she made the call? When he returned home, CPD was already there.

 

[carolinalady]

Originally Posted by momto3kids
I found this posted on the City Data forum, Cary, NC. Page 41, post # 408

I have no idea who this is, but they were a member before the NC case so they didn't join just to state this. Is this why she was partially clothed?


07-26-2008, 07:00 PM
seajoy88

Member


I agree that even though they say it was not a random killing, the fact that no one has been arrested is a little unnerving.

A friend of mine that lives in the Lochmere area reported information to a detective the day Nancy went missing. While my friend was on her jog that day, she saw a woman by Nancy's description around 8am. She described an item of clothing this woman was wearing that was of interest to the detective. Whether this is a coincidence or not, an item of clothing as my friend described was found in the woods. It was not an item of clothing that was known to the public. I have no idea why the police would not release that information, but maybe it was a false lead. Either way, it's just enough information to make my friend stop running alone even if the police say they don't believe the murder was random.

In my search last night for the news report to indicate who would have jurisdication, I did hear a report prior to Nancy's body being found. It did say that LE had collected some items of interest, but there was no indication of what those items were and may have had absolutely zero to do w/ this case.

I'll go back and see if I can find that report.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/media?id=6262404

It was around the 1:20 mark. "A ground & air search has turned up a few items."

 

[BeBeBru]

Somehow, I got the this information - I think it might have been a post on one of the news station's boards - here it goes - go to The Wolf Web (NCSU BLOG) - Under
Chit Chat find the Missing Runner on page 1. Look for the post at 10:54, 7/13/08 by
khcadwal........this sheds some light on the shopping habits and the 50 dress count of NC. Sounds like she had plans to pick up the clothes at 12 noon on the day she disappeared........Sorry I couldn't cut and paste it.

 

[reddress58]

Even if BC wasn't home, JA would have no way of knowing that if the garage door was closed. I have to agree with Fax that she probably wouldn't feel comfortable snooping around the car. I may have missed this with all the info. I've processed, but...was Nancy's car in the driveway the whole night? Did she regularly keep it there or in the garage? Sometimes people keep their cars in the driveway if their garages are full of junk. So if he took her car to Fielding Drive, it would have to be in the garage first to load the body without detection. But it looks as if her car was outside in the driveway when JA drove by and from news photos of the po-lice examining the wheels. Do we know what car was driven to the grocery store? I apologize if this has already been determined.

 

[Just the Fax]

Concerning the purse.....

The media reported the cops removed a Louis Vuitton purse from a car w/o warrant. Sounds like he then let them take it (no mention of cell phone)

"Chief Bazemore said Brad has been cooperating with police, letting them search two cars Monday night and giving them a purse."

It was said that Nancy kept some of her important stuff in the car so Brad could not see it....sounds like this is why her purse would be locked in the car and not in the house.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6265188

 

[fran]

Fran, Do you really think he'd say 6am in his affidavit if he were actually there at 4 and had heard the rumors that the store had him on video?

Well, yes, ...........maybe.

I know of one husband who told TWO separate witnesses he went and played golf. Everyone else he said he went fishing.

NEITHER one was ever proven. BUT, he did go to the BAY, not to fish but to dump!

He also said his wife knew this and knew that. Course, she wasn't around to say IF it was TRUE.

He MAY have taken TWO trips to the store and hopes that his attorney can find a way to say that the store cameras, IF it shows him there at 4 a.m., it is really after 6 a.m. like he said.

The other person also said they left their house at 9:30, yet saw something on tv at 9:50. Oh, and his cell phone placed him outside his house 20 minutes later and then kicked into the cell tower he was supposed to be in the first place.

That's his story and he's STILL stickin' to it from DEATH ROW!

The RUMOR, LOL, by the time it got to the media, was he bought bleach. Now WE know it was DETERGENT W/BLEACH. His story is he bought 'detergent.'............NOW, prove him wrong.

IMO, they will, they will........

I truly believe he was AT THE STORE CLOSER TO 4 A.M. I believe the evidence will prove it.

JMHO
fran

 

[d99gr81]

I suppose it is conceivable that she would take off for a short, 5 mile run at 7am and return home in time to shower and then head over to her 8 am painting commitment.

The fact that runner was seen at 8am, makes it that much more unlikely it was Nancy Cooper

With all respect you name says just the fax yet you so willing to just blow of this? Please I am not trying to start anything I just want you to list on hard fact that we no that proves he did it? Not sure how you can say:

The fact that runner was seen at 8am, makes it that much more unlikely it was Nancy Cooper.

How does it in fact make it that much more unlikely that it was not NC???

 

[fran]

I thought it was established that they no longer had Cisco VoIP at their home. And another poster said even if he did have the VoIP system and somehow altered calls, there would be a record of it.

BRAD SAID he took out the VoIP. Did he? I dunno. I'm NOT going to take his word for it.

I know someone said there would be a record of 'alteration,' but, could he have found another way to alter it without being detected? He does have a degree, I'm assuming it's in computer science. Does he know something others don't or have a way around it? I dunno.....

Until something is proven, I'm sorry, I just can't take his word for it. I do NOT know if he's being truthful. Just like I don't know if EVERYTHING Nancy told her friends is the truth either.

I will say she was right on one thing though!

She feared for her life!?

Looks like she was justified on that one.

JMHO
fran