Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #22

[RaleighNC]

Yeah - that was when Brad was showing folks potential murder weapons (the shovel) when she was still "missing". They are tramping through the woods looking for a PERSON - he's looking for "what killed her".

If you were searching for your wife, and trying to find HER, hoping and praying that she's ALIVE - wouldn't you be looking for scraps of clothing, or footprints instead of a SHOVEL?

But - let's remember, this is the same Brad that when he talked to JA, he stated that he was putting the kids in the car to go look for CARRIE, NOT his wife? Wonder why? Perhaps because he knew he wouldn't find her? or because he already knew where she was?

Way to go, Einstein.

 

[Roy23]

I respect that. But where there are facts, I do rather favor them.

Me too. I kind of see you as the leader of this forum on Nancy Cooper. I am sorry that i have hurt some feelings on here so if I am labeled as antagonist, I find it unfortunate. Brad said he didn't kill his wife but not on television as far as I can tell. It is not a big deal, at least to me. I don't have any inside knowledge and I have opinions, but i am basing it on facts that I understand. Not from one poster.

 

[Roy23]

Bolding is mine.

I was referring to LTF. Brad said he went to LTF. I have a problem that this is something he stated he did but some want to make it like he was sneaking there to plant evidence that Nancy was there.

 

[raisincharlie]

Me too. I kind of see you as the leader of this forum on Nancy Cooper. I am sorry that i have hurt some feelings on here so if I am labeled as antagonist, I find it unfortunate. Brad said he didn't kill his wife but not on television as far as I can tell. It is not a big deal, at least to me. I don't have any inside knowledge and I have opinions, but i am basing it on facts that I understand. Not from one poster.

No leaders Roy - everyone has something to offer, even if it is opposing (non confrontational is always nice), and it is always a good thing to exercise the brain. Hopefully we have some documented facts before long, but I have to say, sometimes there are legitimate locals and not so legitimate locals, seen it several times. Can't always rule out what they have heard or been told - they are living in the middle of it.

 

[jumpstreet]

IMO, practically nothing in any of the custody affidavits can be taken as "facts".

Certainly it's not reasonable to "pick and choose" pieces of BC's affidavit, and categorize those statements that support one's theory to be fact, and then turnaround and categorize those statements that refute one's theory to be "lies".

e.g. Roy's earlier question: How do we known it as fact that Brad went to LTF? A posted response to that query was "Because he said so in his affidavit". By that logic, the fact that it's in his affidavit makes it true, then it follows pretty much that BC didn't commit the crime (based on other statements in his affidavit). For the plantiff's side of course, 90% is hearsay.

Bottom line, for making any sound judgments as to the criminal case, very little should be gleaned from the affidavits (IMO).

As for known facts, if we really peel the onion, there's precious few that's for sure.

Heck, there are some on the forum (though a small percentage) who don't even completely concede that she's really deceased. [ Ref the infamous Theory D, and the ~1% number it got in the straw poll from those responding ]

 

[raisincharlie]

Who wouldn't, when/if wrongly accused/implicated try to grasp for some degree of control.

LE hasn't named him anything - what is there to defend or control ? If his affidavits were about his ability as a father I would have a very different view of him.

 

[jumpstreet]

LE hasn't named him anything - what is there to defend or control ? If his affidavits were about his ability as a father I would have a very different view of him.

I was just responding to the comment that he likes to be in control. I took your point to mean that his statements in the affidavit were an attempt to take (some) control of a "situation" (presumably the custody one).

If he's guilty, then perhaps it makes sense that his custody affidavit was just an attempt at asserting "control". That's fair.

I was trying to (also) consider the flip that if he is (or happens to be) innocent, then another explanation (for all the statements he made) may be that he was (somewhat desperately) trying to respond to the direct accusations from the plaintiff's side, with less regard for the criminal.

Seems that he did spend a fair # of cycles in his affidavit on the subject of fatherhood, and addressing that angle too.

Regardless, it would seem more usual and customary for his attorneys to have suggested a course of brevity (given the (potential for) criminal investigation), but as we all know, this case is far from the "usual and customary" (if there is such a thing) that's for sure!

 

[Roy23]

No leaders Roy - everyone has something to offer, even if it is opposing (non confrontational is always nice), and it is always a good thing to exercise the brain. Hopefully we have some documented facts before long, but I have to say, sometimes there are legitimate locals and not so legitimate locals, seen it several times. Can't always rule out what they have heard or been told - they are living in the middle of it.

The thing is I haven't ruled it out. But let me say in the nicest way I can, I believed a lot more of it until yesterday. I will be here when the facts come out. I will have lost or gained respect or not. I do not have the luxury now of meeting most of you in person since I am not from the area. And you are a leader here, whether you like it or not. The longer I am here, I can promise you that I will bring some positive. Very soon we will know a lot more and I have no problem with anyone rubbing it in my face.

 

[raisincharlie]

IMO, practically nothing in any of the custody affidavits can be taken as "facts".

Certainly it's not reasonable to "pick and choose" pieces of BC's affidavit, and categorize those statements that support one's theory to be fact, and then turnaround and categorize those statements that refute one's theory to be "lies".

e.g. Roy's earlier question: How do we known it as fact that Brad went to LTF? A posted response to that query was "Because he said so in his affidavit". By that logic, the fact that it's in his affidavit makes it true, then it follows pretty much that BC didn't commit the crime (based on other statements in his affidavit). For the plantiff's side of course, 90% is hearsay.

Bottom line, for making any sound judgments as to the criminal case, very little should be gleaned from the affidavits (IMO).

As for known facts, if we really peel the onion, there's precious few that's for sure.

Heck, there are some on the forum (though a small percentage) who don't even completely concede that she's really deceased. [ Ref the infamous Theory D, and the ~1% number it got in the straw poll from those responding ]

That 90% hearsey seems to be very consistent across the board. Can't all be lies, too many points line up. Same with Brad's statements - it isn't all lies.

 

[raisincharlie]

The thing is I haven't ruled it out. But let me say in the nicest way I can, I believed a lot more of it until yesterday. I will be here when the facts come out. I will have lost or gained respect or not. I do not have the luxury now of meeting most of you in person since I am not from the area. And you are a leader here, whether you like it or not. The longer I am here, I can promise you that I will bring some positive. Very soon we will know a lot more and I have no problem with anyone rubbing it in my face.

When we get some documented facts - will look forward to your opinion.

 

[jumpstreet]

That 90% hearsey seems to be very consistent across the board. Can't all be lies, too many points line up. Same with Brad's statements - it isn't all lies.

On the plantiff's side, here's a thought on how it lines up so nicely:
- everyone's primary source for much of the inflamatory stuff was NC (so same source)...
- NC's close friends who completed affidavits were convinced that NC would not want BC to have the children...
- NC's close friends who completed affidavits were willing to selectively emphasize certain things towards the end of ensuring BC did not get custody. [ They were devastated by this loss (some perhaps even feeling a touch of helplessness), and saw this as at least "something" they could do for their friend] ...

I'm not saying any of the above (if even remotely true) is wrong, or bad.
I'm just offering it as a possible explanation for how so much of the stories on the plaintiff's line up so neatly, and still very well could be vast mis-interpretations of the true situation to a large extent.

 

[raisincharlie]

On the plantiff's side, here's a thought on how it lines up so nicely:
- everyone's primary source for much of the inflamatory stuff was NC (so same source)
- NC's close friends who completed affidavits were convinced that NC would not want BC to have the children
- NC's close friends who completed affidavits were willing to selectively emphasize certain things towards the end of ensuring BC did not get custody. [ They were devastated by this loss (some perhaps even feeling a touch of helplessness), and saw this as at least "something" they could do for their friend.

I'm not saying any of the above (if even remotely true) is wrong, or bad.
I'm just offering it as a possible explanation for how so much of the stories on the plaintiff's line up so neatly, and still very well could be mis-interpretations of the situation to a large extent.

Rule out what Nancy told them and look at what they saw themselves first hand - very consistent. Unfortunately, the only voice Nancy has is through her friends - some of which were also Brads friends. Whatever the friends had to say, those comments are not the reason Brad lost custody of his children. It is not the reason several LE officers went to retrieve those kids either.

 

[Roy23]

Rule out what Nancy told them and look at what they saw themselves first hand - very consistent. Unfortunately, the only voice Nancy has is through her friends - some of which were also Brads friends. Whatever the friends had to say, those comments are not the reason Brad lost custody of his children. It is not the reason several LE officers went to retrieve those kids either.

If we had an affidavit from Nancy, we would certainly be able to figure more of this out. I really wonder if she would admit to calling him "Superdad" like she said he did.

 

[RaleighNC]

If we had an affidavit from Nancy, we would certainly be able to figure more of this out. I really wonder if she would admit to calling him "Superdad" like she said he did.

I think you meant "like HE said SHE did" but anywho...

Perhaps he heard it wrong and she was saying "Supercad"?

 

[cygnusx1]

If we had an affidavit from Nancy, we would certainly be able to figure more of this out. I really wonder if she would admit to calling him "Superdad" like she said he did.

No, you don't get it. That was another instance of her Canadian sarcasm; that we Suthna's wouldn't understand.

 

[jumpstreet]

Rule out what Nancy told them and look at what they saw themselves first hand - very consistent.

Right, that's where the selective emphasis part that I mentioned comes in.

Unfortunately, the only voice Nancy has is through her friends - some of which were also Brads friends.

Agreed. As mentioned, it's of course not wrong or bad. It just makes perfect sense (and is only natural) that her friends would want to be her voice, they were convinced that NC didn't want BC to have the children, and this was their way of being her voice. Nothing wrong with it at all. Doesn't mean everything they say is 100% true, but it could explain the degree of consistency in their statements.

Whatever the friends had to say, those comments are not the reason Brad lost custody of his children. It is not the reason several LE officers went to retrieve those kids either.

Agreed here too - there definitely is "something else" compelling (maybe tied to the criminal case, maybe not).

---

I took your earlier post to mean that because all of the plaintiff's comments were consistent, that this somehow lent some credibility to their accuracy. To me it's unclear that it does, that's all [ with my post explaining why I think so ]

They may all be 100% accurate, but it's an unknown in my book and (like BC's affidavit also), I put very little credence in them at this point.

 

[chauncey7381]

Just a comment or two.

This thread/forum is filled with speculation, theories, Brad-Bashing etc., at it's best. A portion of posters on this thread have already convicted Mr. Cooper based on mud-slinging, vicious hearsay gossip, and statistics. So take the comments here for what they are worth and interpret them for what they are in your own mind. I just don't comment on most of it, simply because I cannot convict or call someone a murderer without seeing the evidence, I also have no desire to get into a pissing contest either over speculation.

The only important stuff "TO ME" that came out in the affidavits was Mr. Cooper providing a time line of his actions, which I believe has been confirmed by LE. This is very important! He saw her leave at 7 am., therefore TOD cannot be before that time according to Mr. Cooper. Will the ME report confirm this? We wait and see.

Yeah, well, I know some folks in the Lochmere community too., I've heard it's stressful times for some that live there, the grapevine is jiggling full throttle. Rumors, gossip, theories continue to emerge. I've even heard there is strife amongst the neighbors about things that were written in the plaintiffs affidavits.

In closing, I truly hope he is cleared/completely exonerated of this crime. I'd like to see him take some legal action against some of the pitchfork and torch carriers who have defamed him! Most of all, I'd like to see him get his children back.

 

[wirehair]

Don't forget the really early statements from an exroomate and an ex girlfriend that really laid out his personality. Those statements really backed up what was said by NC's friends. Also, many people have talked about the expensive clothes she wore and the extravagant pedicures,etc. There are several great consignment stores in the area. There are many online catalogues that you can order 200 dollar jeans from and get them for less that 60 dollars at times. She had her hair done at one of the most reasonable salons in Cary. As far as her being an athlete and fighting back... he was an athelete also and much bigger than her. If not trained in martial arts he could have had the ability to contain her body with one arm and her mouth with the other. He would have great upper body strength from swimming. Even the day care workers disputed his statement about not visiting the school very often. They did it in a very nice way chalking it up to comparing the amount of visits to most dads with a busy work schedule. There is a state law in north carolina that allows parents to take off time from work to be involved with their children's school functions. I really believe the statement from MT3K about LTF. It could have been an innocent as "here's my wife's card also, she's on her way in with the kids. See, he didn't know at that time that LE was at his house or would be for that matter. He thought he had more time.

 

[jmflu]

Chauncey,
I don't get people like you who seem to view the obviously very guilty as the innocent, and the other way around, the innocent as the guilty. I saw enough of this crazy talk on WRAL's GOLO site. The people on this site are weighing everything we know and for the most part we are all coming to the same conclusion as NC's friends, her parents, the neighbors, and even BC's ex-girlfriends! If you don't rely on your gut instinct in any of this, then I understand your cry for justice for him. But he has not in any way acted as a man who lost the wife he loved, or the mother of his children. Do you see people, other than those like you who don't even know him, coming to his defense? No. We are not all out of our minds. We are actually taking what has been learned, what has been seen, and what BC himself has revealed in many ways to justify our points of view.

I'll let the others speak now. I'm sure they'll have something to say!

 

[SleuthyGal]

The only important stuff "TO ME" that came out in the affidavits was Mr. Cooper providing a time line of his actions, which I believe has been confirmed by LE. This is very important! He saw her leave at 7 am., therefore TOD cannot be before that time according to Mr. Cooper.

Well, to be exact about it, he said he saw her leave at 7am. It appears you believe his statement. Many do not (perhaps even most do not). I'm in the camp that does not believe she ever left her house again (alive) after coming home from the Fri night party. One clue is that NO ONE has come forward who says they saw her jogging that Saturday morning, or anywhere else. But yes, we will have to wait 'n see. And also I don't think it's reasonable that she went jogging at 7am when she had plans to meet her friend, JA, at 8am.

Another thing: the 'timeline' then for her murder, according to her husband, would be about 1 hr., give or take. Because she didn't show up or call JA by 8am, and she supposedly did not have a habit of being late, and by Brad's timeline she left around 7am.

BTW, in the Scott Peterson case he said his wife went for a walk the morning she 'went missing.' And Scott left to go GolfFishing. And in that case no one saw Laci alive again after the night before. In that case they had gotten the 'abduction' timeline down to 30 min or less, based on things Peterson said, the cell phone pings from his phone and where he was physically located, and the timing of the Martha Stewart show that he insisted he and Laci were watching. And the jury of course did NOT buy that Laci was abducted at all, let alone in a span of 10 min - 30 min.