PDA

View Full Version : Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #28


Pages : [1] 2

chicoliving
10-15-2008, 02:27 PM
New thread. Remember to start threads on specific topics rather than this catch all discussion thread.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 02:29 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3744188/
NC seen jogging on July 12th @ 7:10 AM

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 02:31 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3744188/
NC seen jogging on July 12th @ 7:10 AM

Well that woman is obviously lying.

boxy
10-15-2008, 02:32 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3744188/
NC seen jogging on July 12th @ 7:10 AM

Wow. If this holds up, would change a lot.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 02:33 PM
Wow. If this holds up, would change a lot.


It would also be hard to be mistaken identity since she said they made eye contact and actually spoke (saying hi). Why would this have taken so long to come out?

garner_nc
10-15-2008, 02:35 PM
maybe she did not want to get involved.

wonder if she can describe what she was wearing.

Question: At 7:10 - is that enough time to get to the location from NC house? 10 minutes is a long time when you are jogging so I assume that even could be 2 miles away. I have no idea where the location is in relation to the NC/BC house.

Skittles
10-15-2008, 02:36 PM
My HE washer has cycles ranging from 30 mins to 2 hours. 30 mins is for the "express wash" & 2 hours is for the "sanitary wash". If you want a "skincare rinse" it adds another 10 minutes which I always do having 2 children with sensitive skin.

My dryer ranges from 22 mins to 79 mins. for the preset cycles "jeans, bulky/beeding" etc. You can also tell the dryer how dry you want the clothes and that affects how long each cycle runs also. I think there may be something wrong with my dryer. It typically takes an hour for my clothes to dry. Dh cleaned out the vent not long ago, but it didn't seem to help.

Thanks, Kelly. I guess with that wide range of times we won't be able to determine much about Brad's timeline.

My dryer's not working well either, but that's because it's 19 years old.:smile:

boxy
10-15-2008, 02:36 PM
She lives near the southern end of Lake Lochmere, straight down Lochmere Dr from the Coopers house.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 02:36 PM
Well that woman is obviously lying.

Yeah, the gall to come out with this info on the day before the custody hearing! :)

Seriously, I do wonder when she made this known to LE. If way earlier, and they're BC is still on their 'short-list', then it sure would make me wonder if they really have anything of substance or not in this case...

One tangled web this one is I tell ya...

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 02:38 PM
maybe she did not want to get involved

Yeah, I explored this before here. All the publicity (driven by the custody hearing) could very well end up having a negative or delaying effect on achieving justice (ironic for those driving the custody hearing).

There are many (for reasons good or bad) who may not want to have their name instantly plastered all over the world-wide-web, local and (inter)-national news, and web based boards.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 02:38 PM
Boxy said, "I'm not so sure the sex isn't pertinent. In my opinion, this says he could not control his primal instincts sufficiently to provide three young children with appropriate supervision. If he absolutely had to have an affair, he could have done so without children around. He obviously was not thinking with anything above the waist, not with the location (bedroom he shared with spouse), not with the other person (friend of spouse), not with the timing (while supervising children). No difficulty understanding why they were headed for divorce from this alone."

Well said!

jmflu
10-15-2008, 02:40 PM
Well that woman is obviously lying.

Do you think any of us would have just outright said that? Come on. Give us credit for more than a GOLO mindset.

boxy
10-15-2008, 02:45 PM
maybe she did not want to get involved.

wonder if she can describe what she was wearing.

Question: At 7:10 - is that enough time to get to the location from NC house? 10 minutes is a long time when you are jogging so I assume that even could be 2 miles away. I have no idea where the location is in relation to the NC/BC house.

The distance from Ms Z's house iis a little under a mile from NC/BC's house, so would be exactly right time if NC left house at 7 AM and was doing an easy jog pace though it doesn't say where she saw NC.

Ms. Z likes afghan hounds apparently.

RKAB
10-15-2008, 02:47 PM
Wow! Wouldn't this be the break that Brad would need? And she talked to his lawyers about it and his PI.

Unfortunately, people also saw Laci Peterson, and Caylee Anthony.....

Sometimes people make mistakes. They aren't lying, they truly saw someone but it just wasn't the right person. The police will hopefully be able to determine from the clothing description that this woman gives and what they know of Nancy to have been wearing if this was a real sighting or not.

RaleighNC
10-15-2008, 02:47 PM
Wow - this could be a huge problem for CPD if in fact they did not follow this lead through to speak with this lady at length - especially since she had made contact with them several times.

I still don't believe that is was NC that she saw - but CPD needed to follow this one through to the bitter end and be able to say why she was not credible in her assertion.

I'd say she's reasonable doubt, but probably not enough to sway Judge Sasser.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 02:48 PM
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/15/3744323/20081015142722449.pdf

Rosemary explains that she shared this news with the police right away during the search, they later exchanged voice-mails with her, but ultimately didn't follow-up. She mentions she shared it with officers during the road-side stops too, and still no follow-up.

I wonder what would be a reasonable explanation for CPD not following up with this person who has come forward right after the disappearance with key information?

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 02:50 PM
Wow! Wouldn't this be the break that Brad would need? And she talked to his lawyers about it and his PI.

Unfortunately, people also saw Laci Peterson, and Caylee Anthony.....

Sometimes people make mistakes. They aren't lying, they truly saw someone but it just wasn't the right person. The police will hopefully be able to determine from the clothing description that this woman gives and what they know of Nancy to have been wearing if this was a real sighting or not.


This is the same argument you can use for the bug guys affidavit. As I said in the last thread, I fully believe everyone that has submitted an affidavit (not including BC for sanity sake here) fully believes what they have submitted is the truth. It doesn't necessarily make it the truth, but it is the truth as they remember it.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 02:51 PM
I'd say she's reasonable doubt, but probably not enough to sway Judge Sasser.

You think, even with this eye-witness, the judge is going to conclude that more likely than not, BC still killed NC? Not sure I'm seeing that (MHO).

jmflu
10-15-2008, 02:51 PM
What's really weird is WHY the CPD would not have followed this up. Why wouldn't they? What possible reason could it be? Did this really occur? Can this woman produce the business card the officer gave her?

This is just too weird. I am looking forward to the CPD coming forward to tell us if this happened and if so, why it wasn't followed up on.

Perhaps they had other people who thought they saw Nancy and they discounted it for whatever reason? Valid or not? After all, it doesn't prove Brad didn't kill Nancy, so what is the deal here??

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 02:54 PM
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/15/3744323/20081015142722449.pdf

Rosemary explains that she shared this news with the police right away during the search, they later exchanged voice-mails with her, but ultimately didn't follow-up. She mentions she shared it with officers during the road-side stops too, and still no follow-up.

I wonder what would be a reasonable explanation for CPD not following up with this person who has come forward right after the disappearance with key information?

This affidavit is absolutely shocking. She seems 100% sure the person was NC and called the police to report it. How on earth could the CPD not follow up with this, other than it doesn't fit the BC did it theory. She even tried telling them multiple times. She also explains what she was wearing.

This is by far the most stunning affidavit to date. So what do all of you 100% guilty folks think of this? She doesn't know BC or NC and would have no reason to lie (apparently).

So what do

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 02:54 PM
What's really weird is WHY the CPD would not have followed this up. Why wouldn't they? What possible reason could it be? Did this really occur? Can this woman produce the business card the officer gave her?

This is just too weird. I am looking forward to the CPD coming forward to tell us if this happened and if so, why it wasn't followed up on.

Perhaps they had other people who thought they saw Nancy and they discounted it for whatever reason? Valid or not? After all, it doesn't prove Brad didn't kill Nancy, so what is the deal here??

It does certainly beg the question, how many other folks have reported similar information to LE without receiving follow-up? Maybe there's a ton of folks out there who saw her, and other stuff, but LE has been fairly focused on BC, so they haven't had time to respond (yet) to some of the other leads?

jmflu
10-15-2008, 02:56 PM
It does certainly beg the question, how many other folks have reported similar information to LE without receiving follow-up? Maybe there's a ton of folks out there who saw her, and other stuff, but LE has been fairly focused on BC, so they haven't had time to respond (yet) to some of the other leads?

They should have had time, since that was the entire reason they were out there canvassing the neighborhood with flyers... right?

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 02:57 PM
What's really weird is WHY the CPD would not have followed this up. Why wouldn't they? What possible reason could it be? Did this really occur? Can this woman produce the business card the officer gave her?

This is just too weird. I am looking forward to the CPD coming forward to tell us if this happened and if so, why it wasn't followed up on.

Perhaps they had other people who thought they saw Nancy and they discounted it for whatever reason? Valid or not? After all, it doesn't prove Brad didn't kill Nancy, so what is the deal here??

If the woman she saw was NC, I'd say that comes pretty darn close to proving BC didn't kill NC.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 02:58 PM
Others have said LE is very busy, and until we've walked in their shoes, its hard to pass judgment. So, just to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure LE is planning on personally interviewing this woman (and the many potential others who may have contacted them with info) at some point. These things take time y'all... it's only been 3 months... c'mon, the forensics aren't even back yet... what's the rush...

jmflu
10-15-2008, 02:59 PM
It still seems very suspicious to me that she went to K&B. Why not the media? After all, if she knew how to get in touch with K&B, then she must have been following the case somewhat, and the media would have been a much more neutral place to report that she saw Nancy than the very entity that needed a break the day before the custody hearing...

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 03:00 PM
This case is so crazy, I may soon be back on the Theory D (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2465948&postcount=171) page. :)

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:02 PM
If the woman she saw was NC, I'd say that comes pretty darn close to proving BC didn't kill NC.

I disagree! It doesn't change many other things, just our perception of how it happened! You still have a woman strangled, which is a very personal way to kill someone. You still have hair in the unusually clean trunk. You still have a man that did not appear at any ceremony given in his wife's honor. You still have hair in the wheel well. You still have a witness, according to Mom, who said BC asked her to swipe NC's card.

It doesn't prove anything, but it certainly throws a twist into this very strange and unique case.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 03:04 PM
It still seems very suspicious to me that she went to K&B. Why not the media? After all, if she knew how to get in touch with K&B, then she must have been following the case somewhat, and the media would have been a much more neutral place to report that she saw Nancy than the very entity that needed a break the day before the custody hearing...

She certainly didn't have a 'short-fuse' in going to K&B though. She states that after nearly 3 months of waiting and trying to get in touch with CPD, she finally engage K&B. That would have been just within a week or so ago. Her affy is dated Oct 9th. Wasn't like she hadn't waited patiently after trying the official channels. To me, K&B seems a reasonable next step. Wonder how many other witness K&B has that resorted to the same action? There may be dozens of folks who saw NC that day, but that CPD hasn't yet had the time to interview... Who knows.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 03:04 PM
It still seems very suspicious to me that she went to K&B. Why not the media? After all, if she knew how to get in touch with K&B, then she must have been following the case somewhat, and the media would have been a much more neutral place to report that she saw Nancy than the very entity that needed a break the day before the custody hearing...


Maybe she wanted to stay out of the media. Why did JWB go to the Rentz family attorney instead of the media? I think going to K&B was appropriate since the CPD wasn't responding.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:05 PM
Judge to Hear Plea for Murder File

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1256010.html

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 03:06 PM
What's really weird is WHY the CPD would not have followed this up. Why wouldn't they? What possible reason could it be? Did this really occur? Can this woman produce the business card the officer gave her?

This is just too weird. I am looking forward to the CPD coming forward to tell us if this happened and if so, why it wasn't followed up on.

Perhaps they had other people who thought they saw Nancy and they discounted it for whatever reason? Valid or not? After all, it doesn't prove Brad didn't kill Nancy, so what is the deal here??

What I would like to know is why there is, once again, no description of Nancy's clothes. This woman goes to great lengths to describe her eye sight, how close they were, how she said hello, that Nancy had a long face, but yet the only description of Nancy's clothes she can give is the same one Brad gave (which he later admitted he didn't see her leave and didn't know), except for the light blue tennis shoes.

Sorry but something is missing.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 03:07 PM
They should have had time, since that was the entire reason they were out there canvassing the neighborhood with flyers... right?

One would certainly think... but who knows... I'm just trying to give LE the benefit of the doubt here... maybe they're just really busy, I mean we can't expect them to talk to everyone overnight, right?

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:08 PM
Maybe she wanted to stay out of the media. Why did JWB go to the Rentz family attorney instead of the media? I think going to K&B was appropriate since the CPD wasn't responding.

Good point...

RKAB
10-15-2008, 03:09 PM
This affidavit is absolutely shocking. She seems 100% sure the person was NC and called the police to report it. How on earth could the CPD not follow up with this, other than it doesn't fit the BC did it theory. She even tried telling them multiple times. She also explains what she was wearing.

This is by far the most stunning affidavit to date. So what do all of you 100% guilty folks think of this? She doesn't know BC or NC and would have no reason to lie (apparently).

Maybe the police had enough information in their discussion with her to know that it was not Nancy that she had seen. And that this was why she was not interviewed further. There may be things about the description that enabled the police to discount this sighting early on. Pretty sure if they had this tip, they would have acted on it, unless they were able to discount it early on.

Or, maybe the police had enough information in the earliest stages of the investigation to know that Nancy never left the house to go running.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 03:09 PM
What I would like to know is why there is, once again, no description of Nancy's clothes. This woman goes to great lengths to describe her eye sight, how close they were, how she said hello, that Nancy had a long face, but yet the only description of Nancy's clothes she can give is the same one Brad gave (which he later admitted he didn't see her leave and didn't know), except for the light blue tennis shoes.

Sorry but something is missing.

I was quite impressed with the amount of detail she did recall. I would say it's more than the average person would remember about someone they happened to see on a summer Saturday morning in the neighborhood.

Will be interesting to see how many other folks have already come forward who have seen her also...

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:10 PM
One would certainly think... but who knows... I'm just trying to give LE the benefit of the doubt here... maybe they're just really busy, I mean we can't expect them to talk to everyone overnight, right?

Certainly not if their story didn't add up in one way or another... now, say this woman is sympathetic towards Brad, might she have stated things a little stronger in her affidavit or a little differently than she did to LE?

I'm not trying to discredit her, just trying to make sense of it all...

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 03:10 PM
It still seems very suspicious to me that she went to K&B. Why not the media? After all, if she knew how to get in touch with K&B, then she must have been following the case somewhat, and the media would have been a much more neutral place to report that she saw Nancy than the very entity that needed a break the day before the custody hearing...

Here we go. It's that kind of public opinion BS that keeps people from coming forward. You are so convinced that NC's friends are so above reproach that they could not possibly have exaggerated, but this woman, who lives in the neighborhood, will no doubt be made out to be a nut case. It's disgusting. Who in their right mind would go to the media? If she had gone to the media, everyone would start screaming that she was just trying to get face time on tv. You are just going to have to come to grips with the fact that HE MAY BE TELLING THE TRUTH!

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 03:10 PM
I disagree! It doesn't change many other things, just our perception of how it happened! You still have a woman strangled, which is a very personal way to kill someone. You still have hair in the unusually clean trunk. You still have a man that did not appear at any ceremony given in his wife's honor. You still have hair in the wheel well. You still have a witness, according to Mom, who said BC asked her to swipe NC's card.

It doesn't prove anything, but it certainly throws a twist into this very strange and unique case.


With regards to the hair in the trunk and wheel well, we don't know who it belongs to or anything about them since all we've seen is the search warrant.

With regards to mom's witnesses, they've already proven to be wrong since I think we can pretty much rule out a 4:20 am trip to HT. BC said he went to LTF to see if she had been there. Maybe he asked if she had swiped her card and someone over heard it, or through discussion with others, it got changed to he asked for them to swipe it. Haven't you played the game where someone whispers something to someone, who then tells another, etc...and then see how much it got changed by the end of the chain? I don't hold any credibility to mt3ks witnesses.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:11 PM
I was quite impressed with the amount of detail she did recall. I would say it's more than the average person would remember about someone they happened to see on a summer Saturday morning in the neighborhood.

Will be interesting to see how many other folks have already come forward who have seen her also...

And isn't it WEIRD that she stated that she saw no one else that morning?!

How does THAT happen after daylight on a Saturday morning in that area?

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 03:12 PM
I was quite impressed with the amount of detail she did recall. I would say it's more than the average person would remember about someone they happened to see on a summer Saturday morning in the neighborhood.

Will be interesting to see how many other folks have already come forward who have seen her also...

What detail - other than what can be seen in the flyer ? What color shirt - just light ? You look someone in the eye but don't notice the color of the shirt but acknowledge it was "light" ?

There is no detail - it is a repitition of what she saw in a flyer - which she admits to looking at. Baloney

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:12 PM
With regards to the hair in the trunk and wheel well, we don't know who it belongs to or anything about them since all we've seen is the search warrant.

With regards to mom's witnesses, they've already proven to be wrong since I think we can pretty much rule out a 4:20 am trip to HT. BC said he went to LTF to see if she had been there. Maybe he asked if she had swiped her card and someone over heard it, or through discussion with others, it got changed to he asked for them to swipe it. Haven't you played the game where someone whispers something to someone, who then tells another, etc...and then see how much it got changed by the end of the chain? I don't hold any credibility to mt3ks witnesses.

Bolding is mine.

Sure, and I understand that could have happened.

I wouldn't state that you give no credibility to someone's witnesses that often comes to this board and tries to help, though. That's a direct attack and can be hurtful.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 03:13 PM
Maybe the police had enough information in their discussion with her to know that it was not Nancy that she had seen. And that this was why she was not interviewed further. There may be things about the description that enabled the police to discount this sighting early on. Pretty sure if they had this tip, they would have acted on it, unless they were able to discount it early on.

Or, maybe the police had enough information in the earliest stages of the investigation to know that Nancy never left the house to go running.

Right - I thought the fact that the keys and phone were left in the house proved that she didn't go running anyway. (As she reportedly was taught to always run with keys in hand...).

So, yeah, it probably didn't make sense for LE to waste too much time on this eyewitness report, since it was already established she couldn't have left home.

boxy
10-15-2008, 03:13 PM
Maybe she wanted to stay out of the media. Why did JWB go to the Rentz family attorney instead of the media? I think going to K&B was appropriate since the CPD wasn't responding.

Why didn't she come to Websleuths? :waitasec:

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:14 PM
Here we go. It's that kind of public opinion BS that keeps people from coming forward. You are so convinced that NC's friends are so above reproach that they could not possibly have exaggerated, but this woman, who lives in the neighborhood, will no doubt be made out to be a nut case. It's disgusting. Who in their right mind would go to the media? If she had gone to the media, everyone would start screaming that she was just trying to get face time on tv. You are just going to have to come to grips with the fact that HE MAY BE TELLING THE TRUTH!

Even if it happened the way she says it did, HE IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 03:15 PM
What detail - other than what can be seen in the flyer ? What color shirt - just light ? You look someone in the eye but don't notice the color of the shirt but acknowledge it was "light" ?

There is no detail - it is a repitition of what she saw in a flyer - which she admits to looking at. Baloney

Good deail on hair color, facial description, color tone of clothing, all that is reasonable detail to me. Heck, for most folks who see a passerby on a walk, to even be able to check a flyer, and recall with certainty is tough.

You're probably right though, it's probably balony, and she just made the whole thing up... or maybe was paid to say it. Yeah, that's it...

Don't go "golo" on us RC... you gotta admit, this is an interesting twist. Surely you don't expect every potential eyewitness to recall shirt/short color, etc, that's beyond most folks average recollection abilities. One can easily recall "light", but not specific color. It was a brief encounter. What do you want next... brand names? :)

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:15 PM
Or, maybe the police had enough information in the earliest stages of the investigation to know that Nancy never left the house to go running.

Now there's a thought...

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 03:16 PM
Well I guess if this witness saw Nancy out running with a halter-type jog bra pulled up over her breasts and wearing nothing else including socks and shoes then we can only conclude she saw her for sure! :wink: j/k. Outside of that though, like all eyewitness sightings it might be the real deal or it might have been someone else. I remember the multiple sightings of Laci out walking the dog the morning she went missing (turns out someone else in the 'hood was also preggers and had a golden retriever).

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 03:16 PM
What I would like to know is why there is, once again, no description of Nancy's clothes. This woman goes to great lengths to describe her eye sight, how close they were, how she said hello, that Nancy had a long face, but yet the only description of Nancy's clothes she can give is the same one Brad gave (which he later admitted he didn't see her leave and didn't know), except for the light blue tennis shoes.

Sorry but something is missing.

There was a description. Shorts and a light colored top. I think the affi was very thorough. It would make sense. She made eye contact and said hello to a person. She didn't know that person would soon be murdered. She remembered the face as soon as she saw a flier, but didn't remember exactly what she was wearing (at least details about the shorts and light colored top). That would make sense.

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 03:16 PM
Even if it happened the way she says it did, HE IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

You don't know that.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:17 PM
Good deail on hair color, facial description, color tone of clothing, all that is reasonable detail to me. Heck, for most folks who see a passerby on a walk, to even be able to check a flyer, and recall with certainty is tough.

You're probably right though, it's probably balony, and she just made the whole thing up... or maybe was paid to say it. Yeah, that's it...

Let's not let this start tearing apart posters who finally learned to agree to disagree and who have done a damn good job of being civil up until now. Let's just all discuss it rationally and without personal attacks or sarcasm... can we, please?

RaleighNC
10-15-2008, 03:18 PM
I believe that there is something that CPD knows that makes this witness either not credible or mistaken.

I have to believe that they followed up on any credible lead.

While she's adamant that she saw HER - she's vague on anything other than the long face. It's also possible that the CPD know who the jogger she saw really IS - and it's not NC. I would think that 7AM ish around Lochmere would be a busy jogging time and there is a strong possibilty that another jogger - who went to the CPD - said that she was jogging, saw the lady with the dogs - said hi to her and went along her route - wearing her light colored top......

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:18 PM
You don't know that.

Sure I do! I read the affidavits and listened to the depositions!

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 03:18 PM
Maybe the police had enough information in their discussion with her to know that it was not Nancy that she had seen. And that this was why she was not interviewed further. There may be things about the description that enabled the police to discount this sighting early on. Pretty sure if they had this tip, they would have acted on it, unless they were able to discount it early on.

Or, maybe the police had enough information in the earliest stages of the investigation to know that Nancy never left the house to go running.

They never interviewed her. Her saying to cops in the neighborhood that she reported seeing NC but hasn't received a response back is not an interview.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 03:19 PM
And isn't it WEIRD that she stated that she saw no one else that morning?!

How does THAT happen after daylight on a Saturday morning in that area?

Short walk?

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 03:19 PM
there was a description. Shorts and a light colored top. I think the affi was very thorough. It would make sense. She made eye contact and said hello to a person. She didn't know that person would soon be murdered. She remembered the face as soon as she saw a flier, but didn't remember exactly what she was wearing (at least details about the shorts and light colored top). That would make sense.

bingo!!!

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:20 PM
Ok, so how in the world can you guys explain everything else?

Why would anyone remove her shoes and socks?

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 03:22 PM
Good deail on hair color, facial description, color tone of clothing, all that is reasonable detail to me. Heck, for most folks who see a passerby on a walk, to even be able to check a flyer, and recall with certainty is tough.

You're probably right though, it's probably balony, and she just made the whole thing up... or maybe was paid to say it. Yeah, that's it...

Don't go "golo" on us RC... you gotta admit, this is an interesting twist. Surely you don't expect every potential eyewitness to recall shirt/short color, etc, that's beyond most folks average recollection abilities. One can easily recall "light", but not specific color. It was a brief encounter. What do you want next... brand names? :)


I want the truth and it is my opinion, this is not it.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:22 PM
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1256010.html

Cummings' motion listed numerous reasons why police should not be compelled to turn over their files. Among them: The case is still an ongoing homicide investigation; Bradley Cooper has refused to cooperate with the police investigation of his wife's death; and disclosure of the police files would jeopardize the prosecution as well as a defendant's right to a fair trial.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 03:24 PM
What detail - other than what can be seen in the flyer ? What color shirt - just light ? You look someone in the eye but don't notice the color of the shirt but acknowledge it was "light" ?

There is no detail - it is a repitition of what she saw in a flyer - which she admits to looking at. Baloney

Of course it is baloney, because it doesn't directly point to BC as the murderer. The problem with you saying baloney is that she reported this to police BEFORE NC was found. She called them on July 13th. I think that is very credible. If this was a witness that showed up months later saying, oh yeah, I saw her....that would be different. But she is 100% sure of who she saw and when she saw her, and reported it to police the next day. How is that baloney?

Now try to remember someone that you talked to yesterday. Can you remember exactly what they were wearing? I talked to several people yesterday and know I talked to them...but couldn't tell you exactly what they were wearing. There was no reason for her to remember this at the time. She remembers the face because she made eye contact and exchanged pleasantries with the jogger...and then recognized her from the flyer later that day. I find that credible.

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 03:25 PM
Sure I do! I read the affidavits and listened to the depositions!

It is not worth it for me to respond to you, so I will cease and desist.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:25 PM
Of course it is baloney, because it doesn't directly point to BC as the murderer. The problem with you saying baloney is that she reported this to police BEFORE NC was found. She called them on July 13th. I think that is very credible. If this was a witness that showed up months later saying, oh yeah, I saw her....that would be different. But she is 100% sure of who she saw and when she saw her, and reported it to police the next day. How is that baloney?

Now try to remember someone that you talked to yesterday. Can you remember exactly what they were wearing? I talked to several people yesterday and know I talked to them...but couldn't tell you exactly what they were wearing. There was no reason for her to remember this at the time. She remembers the face because she made eye contact and exchanged pleasantries with the jogger...and then recognized her from the flyer later that day. I find that credible.

I agree. I can't remember crap!

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 03:25 PM
I do believe the affiant saw someone that morning. And I believe she believes it was Nancy and is providing the info she saw. However, I don't believe it actually was Nancy. Further, this affiant is not privy to any other evidence that the CPD may have in the case that hasn't been released. And beyond that, if this witness came forward after the autopsy report was released which described the top NC was found wearing then that could affect her description.

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 03:26 PM
There was a description. Shorts and a light colored top. I think the affi was very thorough. It would make sense. She made eye contact and said hello to a person. She didn't know that person would soon be murdered. She remembered the face as soon as she saw a flier, but didn't remember exactly what she was wearing (at least details about the shorts and light colored top). That would make sense.

Try again: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/23/3257376/Nancy_Cooper_flier.pdf

So one can remember the shirt was light but not if the shorts were or not, even though the person was running right towards her. I don't think so.

gritguy
10-15-2008, 03:26 PM
If the woman she saw was NC, I'd say that comes pretty darn close to proving BC didn't kill NC.

It goes in that direction. As to the case exposed to the public, until more is known, you can say the DA is correct in not taking this matter forward against Brad Cooper. For one, if this woman is truthful just in having reported this to LE and not having been interviewed by them, it's clear the case has not been fully researched.

For all we know now, somebody who worked construction over in that new neighborhood abjucted her in a van, killed her, and then dumped her in a place he knew wouldn't be occupied.

Now, to me, it looked certain from a public view that BC was the killer. However, this new evidence shows there is much about this case that is yet unknown.

Regardless of how busy the CPD is, they should never had let a direct lead like this linger to the point the woman turned to the defense team just to get her story out. It'd be nice from a confidence in LE standpoint to find out she's not being truthful, b/c as is the lack of diligent follow-up is almost as damning as the statement that she saw NC when it comes to confidence in the handling of the matter.

One thing for certain, this bombshell replace Brad's depo mannerisms as the topic of interest in the case.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:26 PM
It is not worth it for me to respond to you, so I will cease and desist.

You just responded.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 03:27 PM
Bolding is mine.

Sure, and I understand that could have happened.

I wouldn't state that you give no credibility to someone's witnesses that often comes to this board and tries to help, though. That's a direct attack and can be hurtful.

I'm not attacking MT3K. I'm saying that everyone jumped on the HT at 4:20 am statement and believed it as fact. I believe that it did not happen, and everything made public to date shows that it didn't happen. That makes it not credible. I believe the other person is correct that he went to LTF. BC agrees to this. I'm not convinced he asked anyone to swipe the card...especially not on a 3rd person account.

cygnusx1
10-15-2008, 03:28 PM
I believe that there is something that CPD knows that makes this witness either not credible or mistaken.

I have to believe that they followed up on any credible lead.

While she's adamant that she saw HER - she's vague on anything other than the long face. It's also possible that the CPD know who the jogger she saw really IS - and it's not NC. I would think that 7AM ish around Lochmere would be a busy jogging time and there is a strong possibilty that another jogger - who went to the CPD - said that she was jogging, saw the lady with the dogs - said hi to her and went along her route - wearing her light colored top......

Would the police not follow up with her and tell her that she saw somebody else instead of letting it linger? Possibly show her a photo of the other person?

WHY did CPD pass out fliers if they were going to dismiss any info they got from them as just regurgitation of the flier?

This person is not credible because they can't state the color of the shirt/shorts she was wearing? I can't remember what my co-workers are wearing right now even after I have been in a meeting with them earlier today.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:29 PM
I'm not attacking MT3K. I'm saying that everyone jumped on the HT at 4:20 am statement and believed it as fact. I believe that it did not happen, and everything made public to date shows that it didn't happen. That makes it not credible. I believe the other person is correct that he went to LTF. BC agrees to this. I'm not convinced he asked anyone to swipe the card...especially not on a 3rd person account.

Ok, and you may be exactly right, and I understand your point. I just think the last line in your paragraph wasn't needed because what you stated was more doubting what the people said rather than directly pointing to Mom as an unreliable source.

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 03:29 PM
Ok, so how in the world can you guys explain everything else?

Why would anyone remove her shoes and socks?

Because perhaps they had evidence on them and the perp took them to be safe? Maybe she had been in someone elses car, house, etc., Maybe it was a gang related message....Some serial killers take items off their victims as little trophies....there are any number of reasons that a killer might do that.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 03:30 PM
I believe that there is something that CPD knows that makes this witness either not credible or mistaken.

I have to believe that they followed up on any credible lead.

While she's adamant that she saw HER - she's vague on anything other than the long face. It's also possible that the CPD know who the jogger she saw really IS - and it's not NC. I would think that 7AM ish around Lochmere would be a busy jogging time and there is a strong possibilty that another jogger - who went to the CPD - said that she was jogging, saw the lady with the dogs - said hi to her and went along her route - wearing her light colored top......

I would hope so to. But police in general can zero in on someone and ignore things that point elsewhere. Not saying CPD did this, but it happens frequently.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:30 PM
[QUOTE=cygnusx1;2822047]WHY did CPD pass out fliers if they were going to dismiss any info they got from them as just regurgitation of the flier?[QUOTE]

There has been some discussion that they needed to do this in order not to be accused of not seeking out other possible suspects and just focusing on BC.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 03:31 PM
Certainly not if their story didn't add up in one way or another... now, say this woman is sympathetic towards Brad, might she have stated things a little stronger in her affidavit or a little differently than she did to LE?

I'm not trying to discredit her, just trying to make sense of it all...

If she told police this on the 13th before BC became a suspect, that would probably mean she wasn't sympathetic towards Brand, and was simply saying I saw this woman. Remember, NC was still a missing person at this time.

RKAB
10-15-2008, 03:31 PM
They never interviewed her. Her saying to cops in the neighborhood that she reported seeing NC but hasn't received a response back is not an interview.

They didn't sit down and have a tape-recorded interview session, no. But in her speaking to the officer at the scene, I have no doubt that the officer there and any further that she spoke to would be making notes, including the description she was providing, the details and her name and phone number. They're not going to blow off a potential witness. What I am saying is that in the information that they recorded (wrote down) while she was giving her informal statement (talking to them), police may have been able to rule out her sighting because of knowledge they had already gained or because of the description she had given not matching. There wouldn't have been an officer onsite that would have said "ya, I don't have time for this now, call us later".

They knew this was a murder investigation. They're not going to drop the ball and not interview a potential witness if they believed that witness to have credible information.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:32 PM
Because perhaps they had evidence on them and the perp took them to be safe? Maybe she had been in someone elses car, house, etc., Maybe it was a gang related message....Some serial killers take items off their victims as little trophies....there are any number of reasons that a killer might do that.

I'm glad you responded anyway. :) I really do think we can discuss this with different points of view calmly and without attack.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:33 PM
If she told police this on the 13th before BC became a suspect, that would probably mean she wasn't sympathetic towards Brand, and was simply saying I saw this woman. Remember, NC was still a missing person at this time.

Correct.

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 03:33 PM
Of course it is baloney, because it doesn't directly point to BC as the murderer. The problem with you saying baloney is that she reported this to police BEFORE NC was found. She called them on July 13th. I think that is very credible. If this was a witness that showed up months later saying, oh yeah, I saw her....that would be different. But she is 100% sure of who she saw and when she saw her, and reported it to police the next day. How is that baloney?

Now try to remember someone that you talked to yesterday. Can you remember exactly what they were wearing? I talked to several people yesterday and know I talked to them...but couldn't tell you exactly what they were wearing. There was no reason for her to remember this at the time. She remembers the face because she made eye contact and exchanged pleasantries with the jogger...and then recognized her from the flyer later that day. I find that credible.


You are ruling out that none of Nancy's clothes she had on that morning were found at the scene where her body was. You are also ruling out that possibly those clothes may have consisted of a dark shirt or a red shirt. So because someone says they saw her LE should stop looking for Nancy and talk to this person in detail because she can describe a jogger but can't tell where she went? The first priority was to find Nancy and as I recall the area where this woman says she saw her was searched rather extensively to include water searches on the lake. What else should they have done and would this report show them where Nancy was at that time ?

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:40 PM
oops!!

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 03:41 PM
I do believe the affiant saw someone that morning. And I believe she believes it was Nancy and is providing the info she saw. However, I don't believe it actually was Nancy. Further, this affiant is not privy to any other evidence that the CPD may have in the case that hasn't been released. And beyond that, if this witness came forward after the autopsy report was released which described the top NC was found wearing then that could affect her description.

That's fair.

gritguy
10-15-2008, 03:41 PM
You are ruling out that none of Nancy's clothes she had on that morning were not found at the scene where her body was. You are also ruling out that possibly those clothes may have consisted of a dark shirt or a red shirt. So because someone says they saw her LE should stop looking for Nancy and talk to this person in detail because she can describe a jogger but can't tell where she went? The first priority was to find Nancy and as I recall the area where this woman says she saw her was searched rather extensively to include water searches on the lake. What else should they have done and would this report show them where Nancy was at that time ?

We don't know if this woman is telling the truth about anything. However, as a citizen of this area, I would expect that by now my law enforcement representatives would have had a documented interview with this woman, unless of course they were swamped with leads, which seems not to be the case since they spent a lot of time asking locals to say whether they saw Nancy out or not, going so far as to stop traffic.

Yet we don't know if they did everything they should have or not. All we can say is that this affidavit looks bad toward them and damages the potential case against Brad. There will certainly be more to be said about it. Perhaps forensic evidence will be so certain that it will be reasonable to believe that this woman was simply mistaken. Perhaps another woman will come forward and say, "No that was me jogging that morning." Perhaps the witness was a kook. Perhaps she saw Nancy. One thing though, if LE didn't follow up on it because they were too busy (something we don't know), then I bet it just slid up on the to-do list.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 03:43 PM
All we can say is that this affidavit looks bad toward them and damages the potential case against Brad. There will certainly be more to be said about it. Perhaps forensic evidence will be so certain that it will be reasonable to believe that this woman was simply mistaken. Perhaps another woman will come forward and say, "No that was me jogging that morning." Perhaps the witness was a kook. Perhaps she saw Nancy. One thing though, if LE didn't follow up on it because they were too busy (something we don't know), then I bet it just slid up on the to-do list.

I bet Pat Bazemore is on this right now and questioning her detectives!

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:45 PM
Perhaps another woman will come forward and say, "No that was me jogging that morning."


And that would be great, because we know the affiant did not see ANYONE ELSE that morning! :)

RaleighNC
10-15-2008, 03:48 PM
Would the police not follow up with her and tell her that she saw somebody else instead of letting it linger? Possibly show her a photo of the other person?

WHY did CPD pass out fliers if they were going to dismiss any info they got from them as just regurgitation of the flier?

This person is not credible because they can't state the color of the shirt/shorts she was wearing? I can't remember what my co-workers are wearing right now even after I have been in a meeting with them earlier today.

She did say that she spoke with someone when she gave her statement - so it's not that they have been totally unresponsive. The other officers that she had spoken to may have brought the info back - reviewed her statement (it was on file) and understood why it was dismissed as not needing follow up and they did not.

Is it right to leave her hanging? Perhaps not, but - if they know it is impossible for her to have seen her, then how could they follow up - what would they tell her if she became more and more adamant that she SAW HER? It is possible that following up and telling her why her sighting was not possible would jeopardize their case.

I don't believe that her vague description of clothing is the reason that they have not followed up.

With the focus and the expected intense scrutiny of all their police work by K&B, I believe that the CPD have a reason for taking this statement and not following up.

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 03:49 PM
We don't know if this woman is telling the truth about anything. However, as a citizen of this area, I would expect that by now my law enforcement representatives would have had a documented interview with this woman, unless of course they were swamped with leads, which seems not to be the case since they spent a lot of time asking locals to say whether they saw Nancy out or not, going so far as to stop traffic.

Yet we don't know if they did everything they should have or not. All we can say is that this affidavit looks bad toward them and damages the potential case against Brad. There will certainly be more to be said about it. Perhaps forensic evidence will be so certain that it will be reasonable to believe that this woman was simply mistaken. Perhaps another woman will come forward and say, "No that was me jogging that morning." Perhaps the witness was a kook. Perhaps she saw Nancy. One thing though, if LE didn't follow up on it because they were too busy (something we don't know), then I bet it just slid up on the to-do list.

I guess my point is, if Nancy's clothes were found at the scene of her body but not on her body and those clothes do not consist of a "light" shirt - why should LE go back and talk with this woman - what is there to talk about? My other point is she says she talked to an LE person on the 13th and as noted from her cited area of contact with the person she believes to be Nancy - searches were under way - why exactly waste time interviewing someone who cannot tell you where Nancy is ? You are searching the area where she said she saw her - what else exactly can be done? Was talking at that time going to find Nancy ?

ETA - I think she is telling the truth about what she thought she saw.

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 03:50 PM
And that would be great, because we know the affiant did not see ANYONE ELSE that morning! :)

Really? How is this thoughtfully discussing? It is rude and arrogant. Why in your opinion is no one in the world credible except JA and friends? You requested no attacks, mocking and sarcasm and this response is demeaning to that woman and sarcastic.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 03:53 PM
Really? How is this thoughtfully discussing? It is rude and arrogant. Why in your opinion is no one in the world credible except JA and friends? You requested no attacks, mocking and sarcasm and this response is demeaning to that woman and sarcastic.

No, it's not... you're misreading! I am serious! If this woman saw a woman she thought was Nancy, and someone else comes forward and says, "No, that was me," then since we know the woman saw no one else that morning, it's not like the woman who comes forward could have been one of several!

Easy, rwesafe!

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 03:59 PM
I bet Pat Bazemore is on this right now and questioning her detectives!

Hopefully she's also asking them... "and just how many other witnesses, and folks with helpful information have y'all not gotten around to calling back yet..."

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:00 PM
Hopefully she's also asking them... "and just how many other witnesses, and folks with helpful information have y'all not gotten around to calling back yet..."

I seriously doubt that.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 04:03 PM
It will be interesting if (and if so, if what way) that CPD responds to this. Any helpful response they provide will no doubt be more than they would have, had this woman not come forward.

The woman's statement is in the media now due to the custody hearing (otherwise, it may or may not be in the media).

Even if CPD aren't worried about this witness, T&S may be scrambling...
From K&B perspective, if CPD provides something that refutes it, well, it's info they (K&B) wouldn't otherwise have had access to. If they don't... then well, it helps the custody case (murder aspect) of it tremendously. Win-win for K&B...

In hindsight, regardless of what info they have access to, CPD would have been well-served to have made this woman feel like she wasn't being completely ignored.

[ But again, I respect the fact that CPD is very busy, and no doubt can't be expected to be completely perfect every single day... ]

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 04:04 PM
I seriously doubt that.

:) You doubt there's other witnesses, or you doubt she's asking them that?

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:07 PM
:) You doubt there's other witnesses, or you doubt she's asking them that?

I doubt she's asking them that. I really think she is aware of every detail.

JMO... they dismissed this woman's comments because they weren't valuable for some reason. (i.e. They knew SOMEthing that this woman's information did not jive with.)

I really can't wait for CPD to come back on this one...

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 04:08 PM
As for CPD not getting back to the woman...this may fall under the 'absolutely no comment' restriction. Info comes in (perhaps seems to fall into a black hole), but the police are not going to share any details with anyone outside of the investigation, even with a witness who came forward.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:09 PM
As for CPD not getting back to the woman...this may fall under the 'absolutely no comment' restriction. Info comes in (perhaps seems to fall into a black hole), but the police are not going to share any details with anyone outside of the investigation.


Well, crap. That means they will be putting up with a lot of bashing perhaps for no reason.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 04:10 PM
I doubt she's asking them that. I really think she is aware of every detail.

JMO... they dismissed this woman's comments because they weren't valuable for some reason. (i.e. They knew SOMEthing that this woman's information did not jive with.)

I really can't wait for CPD to come back on this one...

Yes, will be interesting to see how (if at all) they respond. If they provide any information that discounts the woman's story, it may help give K&B a preview of what LE has. If they don't, then it seems the woman's story should stand as credible going into the custody hearing.

Regardless, it would seem suboptimal for CPD that this woman ended up feeling ignored.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:12 PM
Yes, will be interesting to see how (if at all) they respond. If they provide any information that discounts the woman's story, it may help give K&B a preview of what LE has. If they don't, then it seems the woman's story should stand as credible going into the custody hearing.

Regardless, it would seem suboptimal for CPD that this woman ended up feeling ignored.

"Suboptimal." I like that.

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 04:12 PM
I doubt she's asking them that. I really think she is aware of every detail.

JMO... they dismissed this woman's comments because they weren't valuable for some reason. (i.e. They knew SOMEthing that this woman's information did not jive with.)

I really can't wait for CPD to come back on this one...

What would CPD have to say about it? The woman acknowledges that on the 13th LE took her statement. Is LE obligated to go any further with her if they have evidence which is not consistent with her statement ? I don't understand why anyone would think LE should follow up with her if evidence indicates that she was mistaken based on her description.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 04:12 PM
As for CPD not getting back to the woman...this may fall under the 'absolutely no comment' restriction. Info comes in (perhaps seems to fall into a black hole), but the police are not going to share any details with anyone outside of the investigation, even with a witness who came forward.

In hindsight, I suspect they may wish they had come up with a way to honor the 'absolutely no comment' restriction, and at the same time, ensure that she didn't conclude she was being completely ignored.

Of course I don't think it was intentional on the part of CPD (for her to feel ignored), but I wouldn't be surprised if, in hindsight, they would opt to handle things somewhat differently w.r.t. this eyewitness.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 04:13 PM
Well, crap. That means they will be putting up with a lot of bashing perhaps for no reason.

I think they can handle criticism, as it must be part of the job on a daily basis. But seriously, why would they give away any info or confirm or deny any theory? They would listen to the info and see if it's something they need to followup. Lots of kooky calls come in when there's a high profile crime (not saying this witness is kooky at all), just that the police are privy to evidence neither we nor this witness has. Hopefully she wasn't merely overlooked by CPD and was purposely ignored...okay that didn't come out right, but you know what I mean...

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:14 PM
What would CPD have to say about it? The woman acknowledges that on the 13th LE took her statement. Is LE obligated to go any further with her if they have evidence which is not consistent with her statement ? I don't understand why anyone would think LE should follow up with her if evidence indicates that she was mistaken based on her description.

Bolding is mine.

I was just hoping they would say exactly that to squash all the bashers.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 04:14 PM
In hindsight, I suspect they may wish they had come up with a way to honor the 'absolutely no comment' restriction, and at the same time, ensure that she didn't conclude she was being completely ignored.

I'd recommend one of those nice non-committal letters that HR depts send out to applicants to let them know their 'info was received and if interested you'll hear from us.' :smile:

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 04:15 PM
You are ruling out that none of Nancy's clothes she had on that morning were found at the scene where her body was. You are also ruling out that possibly those clothes may have consisted of a dark shirt or a red shirt. So because someone says they saw her LE should stop looking for Nancy and talk to this person in detail because she can describe a jogger but can't tell where she went? The first priority was to find Nancy and as I recall the area where this woman says she saw her was searched rather extensively to include water searches on the lake. What else should they have done and would this report show them where Nancy was at that time ?

No I'm not. I don't think she was killed where she was found. I'm not ruling out anything...I'm just not dismissing this womans statement because it doesn't fit the BC is guilty theory.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 04:16 PM
What would CPD have to say about it? The woman acknowledges that on the 13th LE took her statement. Is LE obligated to go any further with her if they have evidence which is not consistent with her statement ? I don't understand why anyone would think LE should follow up with her if evidence indicates that she was mistaken based on her description.

My guess is we'll get the "party line". (ie, "we are pleased with the progress of our strong and robust case" ... "everything is going according to plan" ]

This would make the most sense. It would leave the custody judge then to presumably take the testimony of the eyewitness at face value, which is a plus for K&B. [ T&S are scrambling right now on this one I suspect... unless they have a trump card... which wouldn't surprise me either ]

Roy23
10-15-2008, 04:18 PM
What would CPD have to say about it? The woman acknowledges that on the 13th LE took her statement. Is LE obligated to go any further with her if they have evidence which is not consistent with her statement ? I don't understand why anyone would think LE should follow up with her if evidence indicates that she was mistaken based on her description.

Charlie,

The police said that no one had seen Nancy that morning. Not exactly true to an extent.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:18 PM
I think they can handle criticism, as it must be part of the job on a daily basis. But seriously, why would they give away any info or confirm or deny any theory? They would listen to the info and see if it's something they need to followup. Lots of kooky calls come in when there's a high profile crime (not saying this witness is kooky at all), just that the police are privy to evidence neither we nor this witness has. Hopefully she wasn't merely overlooked by CPD and was purposely ignored...okay that didn't come out right, but you know what I mean...

I guess I'm sensitive when someone's accused unfairly.

(Hope I don't owe Brad a big 'ole apology, huh! lol)

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 04:18 PM
I'd recommend one of those nice non-committal letters that HR depts send out to applicants to let them know their 'info was received and if interested you'll hear from us.' :smile:

Sure, couldn't hurt... even a "little thing" like that would have likely saved them a fair amount of grief (in the form of PR if nothing else).. ah well... live and learn I guess...

Hopefully they'll at least get right on that (the form letter) for any other witnesses that have called in who saw NC that morning also...

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:19 PM
Charlie,

The police said that no one had seen Nancy that morning. Not exactly true to an extent.

Well, it's true if that woman saw someone else who was not Nancy, and she just believes she saw Nancy, right?

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 04:19 PM
Bolding is mine.

I was just hoping they would say exactly that to squash all the bashers.

They don't have an obligation to say anything. LE has said nothing about evidence collected from the beginning - to say anything, no matter what they say will be telling of something.

I take this position for a couple of reasons - but will ask you this - put aside everything you know about this case for one minute and answer this question :

A body is found in/near a drainage pond in a semi remote area. The body has little clothing, in fact the only clothing is a sports bra pulled up over the breast.

Outside of the person being murdered, what is your first thought about what might have happened to her given she was found with little clothing ?

cygnusx1
10-15-2008, 04:20 PM
As for CPD not getting back to the woman...this may fall under the 'absolutely no comment' restriction. Info comes in (perhaps seems to fall into a black hole), but the police are not going to share any details with anyone outside of the investigation, even with a witness who came forward.

Then LE should not be surprised when witnesses like this go to the media or elsewhere to get their message out after being ignored.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 04:20 PM
Charlie,

The police said that no one had seen Nancy that morning. Not exactly true to an extent.

That's a great point. When was the presser when the chief made that statement (at the latest point) and how does it compare with the timestamps of when the witness shared her sighting with LE?

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:21 PM
They don't have an obligation to say anything. LE has said nothing about evidence collected from the beginning - to say anything, no matter what they say will be telling of something.

I take this position for a couple of reasons - but will ask you this - put aside everything you know about this case for one minute and answer this question :

A body is found in/near a drainage pond in a semi remote area. The body has little clothing, in fact the only clothing is a sports bra pulled up over the breast.

Outside of the person being murdered, what is your first thought about what might have happened to her given she was found with little clothing ?

(Why do I feel like I am going to fail this test?)

Uhh... my first thought is, she was raped.

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 04:23 PM
Charlie,

The police said that no one had seen Nancy that morning. Not exactly true to an extent.

I know Roy - I've harped on that several times. Which leads me to believe they already knew if there were legitimate sightings or not. I will have to look again - but it seems to me I recall Chief Bazemore saying that after the body was found. I'll look.

Daphne69
10-15-2008, 04:23 PM
I'd recommend one of those nice non-committal letters that HR depts send out to applicants to let them know their 'info was received and if interested you'll hear from us.' :smile:

Or how about this?

"We've determined that your information is not a good fit for us at this time."

Roy23
10-15-2008, 04:23 PM
Too many people here who have an axe to grind. This is not a contest. Try and let the evidence define your theory. Most people are on one side or another and refute all valuable information. It is all about being right. The fact is we do not have enough information to prove a murder. Him being a fibber and a cheater doesn't mean squat. The either have evidence that he killed her or they don't. And NCSU is making some good points but this new evidence today also doesn't prove a thing either.

I can say the police screwed up big time if this is true.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 04:24 PM
Then LE should not be surprised when witnesses like this go to the media or elsewhere to get their message out after being ignored.

Perhaps they're not surprised at all. It seems to happen regularly enough in other high profile cases that have come and gone before (Laci, O.J., Caylee, Stacy Peterson, just to name a few). There's usually some eyewitness to someone that the witness swears is THE person and they usually feel slighted when it seems like the investigation is headed elsewhere. In fact I can't right now think of a high profile case in which there hasn't been at least one eyewitness who swore they spotted the victim or someone around the time of crime.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 04:24 PM
They don't have an obligation to say anything. LE has said nothing about evidence collected from the beginning - to say anything, no matter what they say will be telling of something.


Indeed... it's win-win for K&B. If LE says something to discredit/explain the witness, then K&B gets a glimse of info they wouldn't otherwise have.

If LE sticks to the party line ("everything is going according to plan"), then eyewitness account flys into the custody hearing unopposed.

Brilliant.

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 04:25 PM
(Why do I feel like I am going to fail this test?)

Uhh... my first thought is, she was raped.

Exactly.

I have not ruled out the possibility that Nancy's clothes were found in the area where her body was found. I have not ruled out the possibility that the disposal that included some staging to make it look like a rape. I have not ruled out those possiblities at all.

cygnusx1
10-15-2008, 04:27 PM
They don't have an obligation to say anything. LE has said nothing about evidence collected from the beginning - to say anything, no matter what they say will be telling of something.

I take this position for a couple of reasons - but will ask you this - put aside everything you know about this case for one minute and answer this question :

A body is found in/near a drainage pond in a semi remote area. The body has little clothing, in fact the only clothing is a sports bra pulled up over the breast.

Outside of the person being murdered, what is your first thought about what might have happened to her given she was found with little clothing ?

That she was abducted while out on a run, sexually assaulted, and dumped in a remote area.

And if there had been no strife in this family, that's how LE most likely would have pursued it.

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 04:27 PM
Indeed... it's win-win for K&B. If LE says something to discredit/explain the witness, then K&B gets a glimse of info they wouldn't otherwise have.

If LE sticks to the party line ("everything is going according to plan"), then eyewitness account flys into the custody hearing unopposed.

Brilliant.

The custody case stands on its own. LE has no obligation to be involved, to give or take credibility of any witness put forth in the custody case - this is up to TS. Since we don't know what TS has, I'm not so sure this witness will be unopposed. That is if it actually proceeds to a hearing.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:28 PM
Exactly.

I have not ruled out the possibility that Nancy's clothes were found in the area where her body was found. I have not ruled out the possibility that the disposal that included some staging to make it look like a rape. I have not ruled out those possiblities at all.

So you think he thought it would be long enough until they found her that, because of decomp, a rape kit would not have been able to determine that she was not even raped?

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 04:28 PM
Late Monday, Cooper's attorneys requested copies of Cary police's entire investigative file into his wife's murder to help prepare for Thursday's custody hearing.

Dear N&O

The files were requested Friday, October 10, 2008.

I would provide a link but I'm not supposed to do that anymore.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 04:29 PM
Or how about this?

"We've determined that your information is not a good fit for us at this time."

:clap: :clap: :applause:

hee! followed of course by the ever hopeful, "but as our needs change investigation continues, if we feel your background/qualifications info is a good fit we will contact you.

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 04:30 PM
She did say it and here is what is bothersome: they really didn't give her the time of day to make a formal statement. She may be a crackpot for all I know but it doesn't sound like it.

Roy - she herself admits that LE took her statement on the 13th. What else can LE do ? A statement is a statement is a statement and she admits LE took her statement. I don't see the problem here other than someone who feels LE should have treated her as being more important.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:30 PM
Late Monday, Cooper's attorneys requested copies of Cary police's entire investigative file into his wife's murder to help prepare for Thursday's custody hearing.

Dear N&O

The files were requested Friday, October 10, 2008.

I would provide a link but I'm not supposed to do that anymore.

Self-exiled, Bob, self-exiled...

Funny!

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 04:30 PM
She did say it and here is what is bothersome: they really didn't give her the time of day to make a formal statement. She may be a crackpot for all I know but it doesn't sound like it.

As opposed to the Hawaiian woman?

Now that is funny!

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 04:30 PM
The custody case stands on its own. LE has no obligation to be involved, to give or take credibility of any witness put forth in the custody case - this is up to TS. Since we don't know what TS has, I'm not so sure this witness will be unopposed. That is if it actually proceeds to a hearing.

Exactly, which is why LE will stick to the "everything is going according to plan" line.

Yeah, will be interesting to see if T&S has a rebuttal witness lined-up. My guess is they are scrambling on this one... but it's only a guess.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:31 PM
Roy - she herself admits that LE took her statement on the 13th. What else can LE do ? A statement is a statement is a statement and she admits LE took her statement. I don't see the problem here other than someone who feels LE should have treated her as being more important.

Hmmm... true...

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 04:31 PM
So you think he thought it would be long enough until they found her that, because of decomp, a rape kit would not have been able to determine that she was not even raped?

I have no idea what Brad thought. Sexual assault does not always result in rape if the victim is fighting.

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 04:32 PM
:clap: :clap: :applause:

hee! followed of course by the ever hopeful, "but as our needs change investigation continues, if we feel your background/qualifications info is a good fit we will contact you.


Just for the record Daphne is one of the better people
on this board. She doesn't boss everyone around
and doesn't act like she knows everything about
criminal justice.

Frankly, it's refreshing.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 04:32 PM
I have no idea what Brad thought. Sexual assault does not always result in rape if the victim is fighting.

Good point...

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 04:36 PM
Good point...

Or already dead :mad:

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 04:36 PM
Really? How is this thoughtfully discussing? It is rude and arrogant. Why in your opinion is no one in the world credible except JA and friends? You requested no attacks, mocking and sarcasm and this response is demeaning to that woman and sarcastic.

Good luck with getting any support here.

I've enjoyed reading your posts though.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 04:38 PM
That she was abducted while out on a run, sexually assaulted, and dumped in a remote area.

And if there had been no strife in this family, that's how LE most likely would have pursued it.

A rape kit was done during the autopsy and handed off to the CCBI. So that possibility was pursued. The ME (who is not on anyone's side) said there was no (obvious) sign of sexual assault. That's in the report.

Daphne69
10-15-2008, 04:38 PM
Just for the record Daphne is one of the better people
on this board. She doesn't boss everyone around
and doesn't act like she knows everything about
criminal justice.

Frankly, it's refreshing.

:blushing: Wow. Thanks, B&B. As one of your fans, :blowkiss: I appreciate that.

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 04:41 PM
The distance from Ms Z's house iis a little under a mile from NC/BC's house, so would be exactly right time if NC left house at 7 AM and was doing an easy jog pace though it doesn't say where she saw NC.

Ms. Z likes afghan hounds apparently.


Thanks for posting that.

Wise decision not to post that link though.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 04:44 PM
The custody case stands on its own. LE has no obligation to be involved, to give or take credibility of any witness put forth in the custody case - this is up to TS

Regardless of what happens in the custody case, it seems reasonable to conclude that if LE is still pursuing a potential criminal case against BC (for all we know they're not), then they definitely better have something concrete to refute this (and any other) eyewitness statements of NC spotting on the morning of.

LE may not have had any more obligation to the witness, but this type of thing is a "jackpot" for a defense attorney, hoping to demonstrate that LE may have had blinders on, and hoping to establish reasonable doubt. It's a jackpot, and nearly a slamdunk acquittal, unless there is a directly proportionate rebuttal.

RaleighNC
10-15-2008, 04:46 PM
Again - I believe she believes she saw Nancy.

Responding her to report puts CPD in a very awkward position of potentially letting out information they don't want out. They TOOK HER STATEMENT - that's all she's owed.

They don't owe an officer coming to her house with a sketch artist, they don't owe someone sitting down with her and explaining what they are doing with her statement, how they are following up, whether they believe her, whether they don't, or what information that they have that resulted in their lack of any of the above activities.

What would calling her back have accomplished? Does she have other information that she didn't share in her statement and would only divulge if someone called her? Or interviewed her? That doesn't seem logical.

So - I suspect she contacted K&B out of frustration (can't blame her) and they will run with this.

This is obviously not a surprise to LE and I suspect they are not the least bit flustered.

I do feel this case is coming to a head - and I suspect it's only awaiting the forensic exam on the computer harddrives from the FBI. In the last statement by police - they say it's not back yet and that seems to be the only thing that has been identified as not being back / done.

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 04:47 PM
Does anyone know

1. What kind of dogs Brad and Nancy Cooper used to have?

2. What kind of dog Krista Lister used to have?

You don't have to post the link, I know there's a problem with that.

Thanks!

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 04:47 PM
Regardless of what happens in the custody case, it seems reasonable to conclude that if LE is still pursuing a potential criminal case against BC (for all we know they're not), then the definitely better have something concrete to refute this (and any other) eyewitness statements of NC spotting on the morning of.

LE may not have had any more obligation to the witness, but this type of thing is a "jackpot" for a defense attorney, hoping to demonstrate that LE may have had blinders on, and hoping to establish reasonable doubt. It's a jackpot, and nearly a slamdunk acquittal, unless there is a directly proportionate rebuttal.

I agree. This is a potentially big development. I suppose the prosecution attorney (only thinking about a criminal trial for the moment) could also damage this person's credibility on a witness stand through their questioning...that is another tactic to lessen the blow to the case if there isn't evidence to refute this witness.

DB in FV
10-15-2008, 04:49 PM
I was going to mention Lilly ADkins Road in the affidavit, rather than the actual name, which is Lilly Atkins.

RKAB
10-15-2008, 04:49 PM
Wise decision not to post that link though.

You keep commenting about links. Were you asked not to post links or what are you getting at?

tarheellvr
10-15-2008, 04:50 PM
Does anyone know

1. What kind of dogs Brad and Nancy Cooper used to have?

2. What kind of dog Krista Lister used to have?

You don't have to post the link, I know there's a problem with that.

Thanks!

From some of DD's pictures, they look like a Maltese and a Yorkie.

Krista's.....don't know

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 04:51 PM
If Zednick was SO sure it was NC she saw and not getting a response from CPD...
Why the HEXX did she NOT go to K&B who had a website set up and asked for information? :eek:
She waits until there is a climax in the case before she comes forward?? :waitasec:

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 04:52 PM
Anyone going to the courthouse tomorrow for the hearing?

tarheellvr
10-15-2008, 04:53 PM
If Zednick was SO sure it was NC she saw and not getting a response from CPD...
Why the HEXX did she NOT go to K&B who had a website set up and asked for information? :eek:
She waits until there is a climax in the case before she comes forward?? :waitasec:

I had the same thought...they've been asking for info for awhile now. :confused:

Roy23
10-15-2008, 04:56 PM
Again - I believe she believes she saw Nancy.

Responding her to report puts CPD in a very awkward position of potentially letting out information they don't want out. They TOOK HER STATEMENT - that's all she's owed.

They don't owe an officer coming to her house with a sketch artist, they don't owe someone sitting down with her and explaining what they are doing with her statement, how they are following up, whether they believe her, whether they don't, or what information that they have that resulted in their lack of any of the above activities.

What would calling her back have accomplished? Does she have other information that she didn't share in her statement and would only divulge if someone called her? Or interviewed her? That doesn't seem logical.

So - I suspect she contacted K&B out of frustration (can't blame her) and they will run with this.

This is obviously not a surprise to LE and I suspect they are not the least bit flustered.

I do feel this case is coming to a head - and I suspect it's only awaiting the forensic exam on the computer harddrives from the FBI. In the last statement by police - they say it's not back yet and that seems to be the only thing that has been identified as not being back / done.


I agree that she is not owed anything. But I also agree that they shouldn't go on television and state something that is absolutely false.

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 04:56 PM
I had the same thought...they've been asking for info for awhile now. :confused:

This sighting would help BC not hurt him...why would she not move on with no response from CPD??? K&B have asked for so long ANY information to please contact them....
Why crawl out of the woodwork now?

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 04:57 PM
I agree. This is a potentially big development. I suppose the prosecution attorney (only thinking about a criminal trial for the moment) could also damage this person's credibility on a witness stand through their questioning...that is another tactic to lessen the blow to the case if there isn't evidence to refute this witness.

Somehow I think they better come up with something better than calling-out the witness on whether they know if Lochmere is a Drive or a Road... :)

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 04:59 PM
If Zednick was SO sure it was NC she saw and not getting a response from CPD...
Why the HEXX did she NOT go to K&B who had a website set up and asked for information? :eek:
She waits until there is a climax in the case before she comes forward?? :waitasec:

Maybe she is not net savvy?

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 05:01 PM
Maybe she is not net savvy?
True...but she lives here. It's all over the TV and in the newspapers. She knew K&B wanted info.

BTW...WTVD is going to have something come on shortly about it.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 05:02 PM
I had the same thought...they've been asking for info for awhile now. :confused:

:) Some on the board were complaining that she went to K&B at all... and now we're complaining that she didn't go to K&B sooner...

Ask yourself if you had seen NC that morning, and had the same experience as this woman... what would you have done? Gone to K&B as soon as the opened their web-site... or waited patiently for LE? Now, knowing the custody hearing is this coming week, if you believe that you may have information that (in your mind) may keep an innocent man from having his kids taken from him... what would you do? Call 5-on-your-side? Call LE again? Call Nancy Grace? Call K&B?

Regardless of what we would do, and the timing of it, to me, what she did doesn't seem unreasonable.

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 05:02 PM
This is so biased it is not even funny. Who cares why? With all of the inside information that you have, why didn't you call police or K&B?

That is an excellent question.

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 05:03 PM
This is so biased it is not even funny. Who cares why? With all of the inside information that you have, why didn't you call police or K&B?

Another personal attack Roy? I have no reason to call K&B that is why. I have contacted the CPD FYI!!!!

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 05:04 PM
I have contacted the CPD...

Well??? Did they return your call? (Sorry MT3... couldn't resist! :)

Roy23
10-15-2008, 05:05 PM
Another personal attack Roy? I have no reason to call K&B that is why. I have contacted the CPD FYI!!!!

It is not a personal attack. It is a legitimate question. I am glad you did your job as a citizen and reported it to the PD.

piedmont
10-15-2008, 05:06 PM
:clap: :clap: :applause:

hee! followed of course by the ever hopeful, "but as our needs change investigation continues, if we feel your background/qualifications info is a good fit we will contact you.

You're both hilarious! I heard a good bit of that cra@ working in HR. I always pictured some poor soul actually waiting for "our needs to change."

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 05:07 PM
:) Some on the board were complaining that she went to K&B at all... and now we're complaining that she didn't go to K&B sooner...

Ask yourself if you had seen NC that morning, and had the same experience as this woman... what would you have done? Gone to K&B as soon as the opened their web-site... or waited patiently for LE? Now, knowing the custody hearing is this coming week, if you believe that you may have information that (in your mind) may keep an innocent man from having his kids taken from him... what would you do? Call 5-on-your-side? Call LE again? Call Nancy Grace? Call K&B?

Regardless of what we would do, and the timing of it, to me, what she did doesn't seem unreasonable.

I would have called the bug guy. He's about the only
one who seems to know what he's doing.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 05:09 PM
Too many people here who have an axe to grind. This is not a contest. Try and let the evidence define your theory. Most people are on one side or another and refute all valuable information. It is all about being right. The fact is we do not have enough information to prove a murder. Him being a fibber and a cheater doesn't mean squat. The either have evidence that he killed her or they don't. And NCSU is making some good points but this new evidence today also doesn't prove a thing either.

I can say the police screwed up big time if this is true.


I'm not on either side. I'm on the "I can't reasonably say that BC murdered NC based on what has been presented to the public" side of things.

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 05:09 PM
:) Some on the board were complaining that she went to K&B at all... and now we're complaining that she didn't go to K&B sooner...

Ask yourself if you had seen NC that morning, and had the same experience as this woman... what would you have done? Gone to K&B as soon as the opened their web-site... or waited patiently for LE? Now, knowing the custody hearing is this coming week, if you believe that you may have information that (in your mind) may keep an innocent man from having his kids taken from him... what would you do? Call 5-on-your-side? Call LE again? Call Nancy Grace? Call K&B?

Regardless of what we would do, and the timing of it, to me, what she did doesn't seem unreasonable.

If I was in her position and it supported BC statement that NC went jogging, your dang tooting I would go to K&B if the CPD hasn't responded. Why wait 3 months to do an affidavit? The custody has been an issue for the last 3 months. It didn't just surface where she felt compelled to finally speak out.

I call an ACE and ACE and a SPADE a SPADE.

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 05:09 PM
From some of DD's pictures, they look like a Maltese and a Yorkie.

Krista's.....don't know

Thanks.

Do you have a link for that picture?

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 05:11 PM
:blushing: Wow. Thanks, B&B. As one of your fans, :blowkiss: I appreciate that.

That's ok.

I usually like reading your things, Anderson's and rwesafe's.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 05:12 PM
Perhaps they're not surprised at all. It seems to happen regularly enough in other high profile cases that have come and gone before (Laci, O.J., Caylee, Stacy Peterson, just to name a few). There's usually some eyewitness to someone that the witness swears is THE person and they usually feel slighted when it seems like the investigation is headed elsewhere. In fact I can't right now think of a high profile case in which there hasn't been at least one eyewitness who swore they spotted the victim or someone around the time of crime.

A lot of times, that ID is done well after the disappearance. She saw the flyer the day of the disappearance here. There is a lot less time for her memory to be distorted in this case. It doesn't mean the person she saw was NC...she could still be wrong. But her affidavit seems credible.

Roy23
10-15-2008, 05:12 PM
I'm not on either side. I'm on the "I can't reasonably say that BC murdered NC based on what has been presented to the public" side of things.

I agree. It seemed you were rubbing some noses in doody just a little.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 05:14 PM
So you think he thought it would be long enough until they found her that, because of decomp, a rape kit would not have been able to determine that she was not even raped?

The autopsy said her genitals were heavily infested with bugs. It also rained on the 13th if I remember correctly. I think that makes the results unreliable.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 05:14 PM
Another personal attack Roy? I have no reason to call K&B that is why. I have contacted the CPD FYI!!!!

Really? did you get to talk to JA.Y.?

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 05:15 PM
It is not a personal attack. It is a legitimate question. I am glad you did your job as a citizen and reported it to the PD.
It is a personal attack. You said specifically why DIDN'T I contact LE or K&B with all my inside information as well as biased.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 05:15 PM
The autopsy said her genitals were heavily infested with bugs. It also rained on the 13th if I remember correctly. I think that makes the results unreliable. That's true, but the autopsy also said her cervix was intact and showed no trauma. That's one clue of no rape.

Daphne69
10-15-2008, 05:16 PM
I would have called the bug guy. He's about the only
one who seems to know what he's doing.

Ha! Unless your name's Lisa. :crazy:

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 05:16 PM
I would have called the bug guy. He's about the only
one who seems to know what he's doing.

:clap:

I like this B&B... Heck... maybe the bug guy did it. I'll add that to the theory list. :D

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 05:18 PM
What am I missing here? This woman claims to have seen Nancy and supposedly filed a report ON THE MORNING SHE WENT MISSING. But the Chief claimed on national television that nobody had seen Nancy that morning. She didn't say that nobody credible saw Nancy. She said nobody.

Again what am I missing? This sounds like a blunder even though I am sure this could easily be a mistaken identity.


Line 14 of Ms. Zednick's affidavit states she spoke with LE on the 13th and by telephone she left her statement with LE.

At the following link, from the July 14th press conference (at 1128-1149) Chief Bazemore does say that there have been no confirmed sightings of Nancy since she went missing.

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

Does that help you ?


Also please note that Chief Bazemore tells people to be careful about sightings - as Nancy's sister is in town and participating in the searches - does that help?

Roy23
10-15-2008, 05:18 PM
It is a personal attack. You said specifically why DIDN'T I contact LE or K&B with all my inside information as well as biased.

Thanks for being such a good citizen and reporting all that you know to the authorities.

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 05:19 PM
Is anyone going to the court hearing tomorrow?

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 05:19 PM
If Zednick was SO sure it was NC she saw and not getting a response from CPD...
Why the HEXX did she NOT go to K&B who had a website set up and asked for information? :eek:
She waits until there is a climax in the case before she comes forward?? :waitasec:

Maybe she wasn't reading websleuths or didn't see the newscast. Not everyone follows this case as much as we do. Maybe she did last week because of the large media focus concerning the BC deposition last week.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 05:22 PM
I agree. It seemed you were rubbing some noses in doody just a little.


I feel like I have to constantly defend my position of being a fence sitter. I seem to remember a little behind emoticon yesterday asking about splinters.

Roy23
10-15-2008, 05:22 PM
Line 14 of Ms. Zednick's affidavit states she spoke with LE on the 13th and by telephone she left her statement with LE.

At the following link, from the July 14th press conference (at 1128-1149) Chief Bazemore does say that there have been no confirmed sightings of Nancy since she went missing.

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

Does that help you ?


Maybe it does. Saying "no confirmed sightings" does make a difference. I will say that I sure hope they have something good from that house for them not to follow up in more than they did. Sure, she is not owed it but it may bite them in court depending on what they got.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 05:23 PM
Is anyone going to the court hearing tomorrow?

Wish I could but alas, work interferes. Any info on whether it's an open or closed hearing?

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 05:25 PM
I feel like I have to constantly defend my position of being a fence sitter. I seem to remember a little behind emoticon yesterday asking about splinters. You don't have to defend it. I made a comment about splinters but it's not a cut to being a fence sitter...just that sitting on a fence (any fence) can get uncomfortable. And it can (ask me how I know).

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 05:27 PM
Maybe it does. Saying "no confirmed sightings" does make a difference. I will say that I sure hope they have something good from that house for them not to follow up in more than they did. Sure, she is not owed it but it may bite them in court depending on what they got.

I added something obviously after you looked - Chief Bazemore also alerted/reminded people of the fact that Nancy's twin sister is about. Twin sister.

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 05:29 PM
Wish I could but alas, work interferes. Any info on whether it's an open or closed hearing?

Have a sick day???:crazy:

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 05:31 PM
Have a sick day???:crazy: heh. Tempting, yes.

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 05:34 PM
Any idea who will be in the courthouse for this hearing besides BC and NC family?
LE?
NC friends?
BC friends?

Any idea how involved this will be tomorrow?

ncnative
10-15-2008, 05:34 PM
What's up with the sly remarks to my statement that anyone who has lived in Lochmere since 1989 should know to call it Lochmere DRIVE, not "Lochmere Road" as the affidavit has Zednick calling it. I asked if that error was due to the typist or does Zednick actually call it "Lochmere ROAD". Surely Zednick, whose home is listed as being owned by them since 1989, knows to call it Lochmere DRIVE. No one here calls it Lochmere ROAD. If you lived here, like I do, you wouldn't think my comment so worthy of offhanded remarks, or you just didn't understand.

Almost 20 yrs. in Lochmere...you'd think she could get it right (assuming she isn't a new spouse to the original owner of the home). I've lived in LM almost as long. It's just an observance.

As to the WS comments throughout the day...eh. I'm betting on the Cary PD for my best info. They aren't talking right now.

ncmomof2boys
10-15-2008, 05:40 PM
"Town of Cary spokeswoman Susan Moran declined to comment on the affidavit but urged anyone with information about the murder case to contact police."

To me this is a slight statement of 'the CPD IS doing their job' and 'will follow any leads that may pertain to the case'.

So maybe this woman did not have pertinant information...

ncnative
10-15-2008, 05:43 PM
Any idea who will be in the courthouse for this hearing besides BC and NC family?
LE?
NC friends?
BC friends?

Any idea how involved this will be tomorrow?

I can only imagine, Mom. Maybe I'll go and let you know.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 05:47 PM
Somehow I think they better come up with something better than calling-out the witness on whether they know if Lochmere is a Drive or a Road... :)

I doubt that kind of detail is what a prosecution lawyer would use to 'discredit' a witness. Typos are not a big deal. No I mean things like questions about the sighting itself, what the person was wearing, how clearly they saw them, how closely they paid attention, if they (the prosecution) learned of someone else in the neighborhood who was out that morning and if that person has a similar height and build...things like that. Eyewitness testimony can be strong but it can also sometimes proved to be mistaken or at least enough doubt established that a jury doesn't know if the eyewitness really saw the victim or not. I remember seeing similar type testimony in prior cases (I watched the O.J. trial, the Laci trial and a couple others along the way and eyewitness testimony was discredited in the end by prosecutors).

tarheellvr
10-15-2008, 05:59 PM
This sighting would help BC not hurt him...why would she not move on with no response from CPD??? K&B have asked for so long ANY information to please contact them....
Why crawl out of the woodwork now?

The idea of her not being computer savvy..BS...not with her job. This was on all news channels and IMO someone would have to live under a stump not to have seen or heard bits and pieces before now.

I'm with you 100%...why now?????? Why not last month or even Aug????
Again, why now? Somethings not quite kosher.....and I'm not referring to CPD.

ncnative
10-15-2008, 06:03 PM
Eye wonder: Eye_Believe certainly has been silent. :eye: Eye, if you are lurking, please come out and let us know how the "Lochmere dirt on Nancy's knee" theory is coming along. What do you think of the latest aff from the Lochmerian dog walker who says she saw NC through her own contact lenses?
Eye? Are you with us?

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 06:11 PM
I doubt that kind of detail is what a prosecution lawyer would use to 'discredit' a witness. Typos are not a big deal. No I mean things like questions about the sighting itself, what the person was wearing, how clearly they saw them, how closely they paid attention, if they (the prosecution) learned of someone else in the neighborhood who was out that morning and if that person has a similar height and build...things like that. Eyewitness testimony can be strong but it can also sometimes proved to be mistaken or at least enough doubt established that a jury doesn't know if the eyewitness really saw the victim or not. I remember seeing similar type testimony in prior cases (I watched the O.J. trial, the Laci trial and a couple others along the way and eyewitness testimony was discredited in the end by prosecutors).

Hey SG - did you notice the judge turned down Door #2 ? Guess no one can claim she isn't trying to be fair since she could have looked in those files for the answer she will need tomorrow as part of her determination regarding temporary custody. :)

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 06:12 PM
Tomorrow's hearing is open. No media camera's allowed.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 06:12 PM
Hey SG - did you notice the judge turned down Door #2 ? Guess no one can claim she isn't trying to be fair since she could have looked in those files for the answer she will need tomorrow as part of her determination regarding temporary custody. :)Yes I did notice that. She has some good willpower, eh?

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 06:12 PM
Tomorrow's hearing is open. No media camera's allowed.

You TEMPTRESS you!! :wink:

what time does it start?

jmflu
10-15-2008, 06:12 PM
I doubt that kind of detail is what a prosecution lawyer would use to 'discredit' a witness. Typos are not a big deal. No I mean things like questions about the sighting itself, what the person was wearing, how clearly they saw them, how closely they paid attention, if they (the prosecution) learned of someone else in the neighborhood who was out that morning and if that person has a similar height and build...things like that. Eyewitness testimony can be strong but it can also sometimes proved to be mistaken or at least enough doubt established that a jury doesn't know if the eyewitness really saw the victim or not. I remember seeing similar type testimony in prior cases (I watched the O.J. trial, the Laci trial and a couple others along the way and eyewitness testimony was discredited in the end by prosecutors).

I guess "said-o"s hold a lot more weight than "typos." When I heard the lady called it Lochmere Road instead of Lochmere Drive it made me think she didn't know what she was talking about. When I heard Brad say "Wilson" instead of "Windsor," it made me think he DID know what he was talking about and that he was trying to hide something!

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 06:13 PM
Yes I did notice that. She has some good willpower, eh?


More than me - I would have brewed a fresh pot of coffee, proped my feet up and commenced to read like a demon. :crazy:

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 06:15 PM
I guess "said-o"s hold a lot more weight than "typos." When I heard the lady called it Lochmere Road instead of Lochmere Drive it made me think she didn't know what she was talking about. When I heard Brad say "Wilson" instead of "Windsor," it made me think he DID know what he was talking about and that he was trying to hide something!

LOL @ 'said-o's' Why am I now thinking of spaghetti-o's?

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 06:16 PM
More than me - I would have brewed a fresh pot of coffee, proped my feet up and commenced to read like a demon. :crazy: yeah me too! And since willpower would have been a nice idea but ultimately unsuccessful, I suppose I'd have a cookie or some chocolate along with that coffee. :wink:

jilly
10-15-2008, 06:17 PM
Roy - she herself admits that LE took her statement on the 13th. What else can LE do ? A statement is a statement is a statement and she admits LE took her statement. I don't see the problem here other than someone who feels LE should have treated her as being more important.

:clap:Exactly. Ita.

ncmomof2boys
10-15-2008, 06:19 PM
It seems they have yet another update on WRAL.

"Cary police Chief Pat Bazemore declined to comment on the affidavit but urged anyone with information about the murder case to contact police."

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 06:20 PM
:clap:Exactly. Ita.

I should probably retract that statement Ms. Jilly since it was Lynn Prather who notorized it - I suspect it may actually be closer to the truth that K & B thought she should have been given special and important treatment.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 06:29 PM
Hey SG - did you notice the judge turned down Door #2 ? Guess no one can claim she isn't trying to be fair since she could have looked in those files for the answer she will need tomorrow as part of her determination regarding temporary custody. :)

I missed this I guess...
I did see where the judge denied the defense their request for CPD to hand over all info... Is that what you're getting at?

If the custody judge would have ordered LE to hand over all the investigation info to BC's attorneys, would they have had to comply?

When did the custody judge herself pass up an opportunity to get that info from LE, and read it for herself?

I'm sure it's written up in an article somewhere, I just missed it... :)
[ Again, I saw where she ruled against the defendant's requests, but just don't see the direct connection with not taking door #2 ]

jilly
10-15-2008, 06:30 PM
I should probably retract that statement Ms. Jilly since it was Lynn Prather who notorized it - I suspect it may actually be closer to the truth that K & B thought she should have been given special and important treatment.

Even better!:)

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 06:43 PM
I missed this I guess...
I did see where the judge denied the defense their request for CPD to hand over all info... Is that what you're getting at?

If the custody judge would have ordered LE to hand over all the investigation info to BC's attorneys, would they have had to comply?

When did the custody judge herself pass up an opportunity to get that info from LE, and read it for herself?

I'm sure it's written up in an article somewhere, I just missed it... :)
[ Again, I saw where she ruled against the defendant's requests, but just don't see the direct connection with not taking door #2 ]


It's in the legal docs - Motion to Quash. The DA was not willing to turn over the records but provided Door #2 - an in camera inspection of the records by the judge to determine if the records were necessary for the custody hearing.

momto3kids
10-15-2008, 06:44 PM
You TEMPTRESS you!! :wink:

what time does it start?
How's 9am? Meet you on the court steps! Come early I was told.

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 06:49 PM
Interesting - alittle more info in this report:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6451368

"That was part of the argument Wednesday by Brad's attorneys who want Cary Police to release to them all evidence in the murder case.
But the judge hearing the custody battle over the Cooper children said that request wasn't appropriate for the civil case.
She suggested that instead they simply ask questions of the Cary detective heading up the case when he takes the stand in the temporary custody hearing Thursday."


Uh oh - be careful what you ask for.

Star12
10-15-2008, 07:15 PM
Of course it is baloney, because it doesn't directly point to BC as the murderer. The problem with you saying baloney is that she reported this to police BEFORE NC was found. She called them on July 13th. I think that is very credible. If this was a witness that showed up months later saying, oh yeah, I saw her....that would be different. But she is 100% sure of who she saw and when she saw her, and reported it to police the next day. How is that baloney?

Now try to remember someone that you talked to yesterday. Can you remember exactly what they were wearing? I talked to several people yesterday and know I talked to them...but couldn't tell you exactly what they were wearing. There was no reason for her to remember this at the time. She remembers the face because she made eye contact and exchanged pleasantries with the jogger...and then recognized her from the flyer later that day. I find that credible.

SG and I spent a couple of hours at a local coffee shop the other evening discussing the case. She was wearing a dark Tee, and, ummm, something else I'm pretty sure. I remember the Tee because we were discussing clothing, and she drew attention to her shirt. I was wearing a jacket, and I'm SURE I also had more on than that. And as far as strangers I speak with, nah, I don't pay attention unless it's something really bizarre or highly inappropriate.

And NC was found wearing a jogging bra, not a Tee shirt. And I have seen a TON of women these past three months that remind me of Nancy. Similar looks and build.

I would not specifically say this woman is lying, but Ido have concerns about the validity of her statement. And why would she wait three months to contact K&B - on basically the eve of the custody hearing?

Maja
10-15-2008, 07:17 PM
Is it possible there is another runner in the area who looks similar to Nancy who went running the morning of 12 Jul?


Boy howdy, them dog walkers are amazing in this case!!!

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 07:20 PM
Is it possible there is another runner in the area who looks similar to Nancy who went running the morning of 12 Jul?


Boy howdy, them dog walkers are amazing in this case!!!

I would venture to say there is more than one young brown haired woman with a pulled back pony tail who jogs in a light colored shirt in the Lochmere area.

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 07:47 PM
And elephants don't sit in the corner of a room.

Maja
10-15-2008, 07:50 PM
I would venture to say there is more than one young brown haired woman with a pulled back pony tail who jogs in a light colored shirt in the Lochmere area.

Seems if it was NC, she survives on VERY little sleep! Goodness, home at 1230, up at 4 AM and on a run at 7 AM. Perhaps 3 hours sleep?

BC "allegedly" slept (with the girls--strange to me) from 9:30 PM - 1230 AM then up at 4 Am.

What are your thoughts on the latest Affidavit and the crossed out bits?

raisincharlie
10-15-2008, 07:59 PM
Seems if it was NC, she survives on VERY little sleep! Goodness, home at 1230, up at 4 AM and on a run at 7 AM. Perhaps 3 hours sleep?

BC "allegedly" slept (with the girls--strange to me) from 9:30 PM - 1230 AM then up at 4 Am.

What are your thoughts on the latest Affidavit and the crossed out bits?

The north south part - seems like it is a repeat statement just worded differently. Not sure why it is crossed out. I think the north south part is correct.

ncnative
10-15-2008, 08:08 PM
Seems if it was NC, she survives on VERY little sleep! Goodness, home at 1230, up at 4 AM and on a run at 7 AM. Perhaps 3 hours sleep?

BC "allegedly" slept (with the girls--strange to me) from 9:30 PM - 1230 AM then up at 4 Am.

What are your thoughts on the latest Affidavit and the crossed out bits?

And don't forget, friends at the BBQ said Nancy wasn't feeling well that night.:cool:

Maybe K&B's detective should bring a lawn chair and sit on Lochmere Dr. by the pool and tennis area. Lots of people jogging and walking, most any time.

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 08:17 PM
How come the grandparents and the aunt don't have
to have a psychological evaluation?

jmflu
10-15-2008, 08:18 PM
How come the grandparents and the aunt don't have
to have a psychological evaluation?

It's doubtful they murdered her.

ncnative
10-15-2008, 08:20 PM
I guess "said-o"s hold a lot more weight than "typos." When I heard the lady called it Lochmere Road instead of Lochmere Drive it made me think she didn't know what she was talking about. When I heard Brad say "Wilson" instead of "Windsor," it made me think he DID know what he was talking about and that he was trying to hide something!

Good one, jmflu. (And not just because it was something I said.):read:

Saying Lochmere ROAD (when it is actually Lochmere Drive) and you are a resident of that neighborhood is like hearing an NCSU student call Western Blvd. "Western Ave.". You just don't do that. I think it must have been a typo, otherwise the Lochmere dogwalking lady is "lost". :nuts:

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 08:29 PM
It's doubtful they murdered her.

There is doubt that he did too.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 08:39 PM
There is doubt that he did too.

Nawwwww....

Star12
10-15-2008, 08:44 PM
How is this important? What bearing does it have on anything? The woman didn't type this. Road, avenue, street - big whoop. The point is made of where she says she allegedly saw Nancy.

Just the Fax
10-15-2008, 08:46 PM
Why is that relevant?

It is simply factual information from public record about the witness.
If you don't find the info relevant, that is fine.

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 09:03 PM
There is doubt that he did too.


Thank you rwesafe.

cygnusx1
10-15-2008, 09:11 PM
I added something obviously after you looked - Chief Bazemore also alerted/reminded people of the fact that Nancy's twin sister is about. Twin sister.

Wait...her sister was in town on the morning of the 12th?

Just the Fax
10-15-2008, 09:12 PM
SG and I spent a couple of hours at a local coffee shop the other evening discussing the case. She was wearing a dark Tee, and, ummm, something else I'm pretty sure. I remember the Tee because we were discussing clothing, and she drew attention to her shirt. I was wearing a jacket, and I'm SURE I also had more on than that. And as far as strangers I speak with, nah, I don't pay attention unless it's something really bizarre or highly inappropriate.

And NC was found wearing a jogging bra, not a Tee shirt. And I have seen a TON of women these past three months that remind me of Nancy. Similar looks and build.

I would not specifically say this woman is lying, but Ido have concerns about the validity of her statement. And why would she wait three months to contact K&B - on basically the eve of the custody hearing?

Sounds like this lady may have an agenda.
Does she crave attention enough to want to be inserted as a 'star witness' ?
After contacting CPD on several occasions, why did she also feel the need to contact K&B ?
I think this woman will eventually be shredded on the witness stand by the DA.

KellyCrash
10-15-2008, 09:14 PM
RE: Crossed out bits in the affidavit...

I think they crossed out the part that said she was running towards Lily Atkins because Lily Atkins connects with Holly Springs Rd. very close to the entrance of the subdivision where she was found. I think it was an assumption she was running in that direction & not a fact so it was crossed out. I think a direction of which way she was running was more accurate.

ncnative
10-15-2008, 09:15 PM
Thanks for the info JTF. Amazing sometimes everyone wants every tidbit of info and other times they don't.

I thank you too, JTF. I live here. I was wondering how old the woman is. I figured out the rest already.

Mom, there are a bunch of testy butts on here lately. If it ain't a know-it-all, it a "testy":behind: I tell ye.

Just gotta decide what to read and what to pass over.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 09:22 PM
It was posted (thanks RC) that LE's exact statement which seems to be slightly at odds with this woman's statement was that there had been no confirmed sightings of NC since she was reported disappeared.

Any guesses as to what it would have taken for a reported sighting to become a confirmed sighting? Seems that even if the woman was totally wrong in a statement about the color or brand of clothing, to have spotted someone matching NC's description, at that specific time and place, would seem fairly credible. For some reason, as I read the eyewitness's affidavit, she comes across as fairly convinced to me that she saw NC. I imagine she'll be pretty convincing on the witness stand as well (in either a custody hearing, or a (hypothetical) criminal trial).

Here's a related question: Given the in-laws have stated that NC would never run without her phone, and her keys... and given the phone and keys were found in the house... wouldn't that alone be enough for LE to not consider any NC sightings as credible? [ Maybe the passing out of flyers, etc was just for the "optics" (make it appear as due diligence is being done). All the questions were rhetorical of course though... as the in-laws had already sealed the fact that she surely couldn't have gone running (without keys and phone). Even now, today, the statements from LE encouraging anyone with information to come forward... these requests are really just to manage the perception that all angles are being fully explored, right? After all, why would the in-laws lie? ]

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 09:29 PM
The idea of her not being computer savvy..BS...not with her job. This was on all news channels and IMO someone would have to live under a stump not to have seen or heard bits and pieces before now.

I'm with you 100%...why now?????? Why not last month or even Aug????
Again, why now? Somethings not quite kosher.....and I'm not referring to CPD.


Maybe because the media attention has increased in the last week due to the custody hearing. And she did bring it to the CPD attention immediately, before NC was even found. Maybe she felt like she needed to say something since the judge was going to "determine" his guilt or innocence as part of the custody hearing.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 09:31 PM
Maybe because the media attention has increased in the last week due to the custody hearing. And she did bring it to the CPD attention immediately, before NC was even found. Maybe she felt like she needed to say something since the judge was going to "determine" his guilt or innocence as part of the custody hearing.

Exactly. You can tell too, that there is zero doubt in her mind that it was NC that she saw. Who knows, maybe as has been implied it was the twin sister... or a look-a-like... but seems that seems a stretch to me...

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 09:31 PM
Maybe because the media attention has increased in the last week due to the custody hearing. And she did bring it to the CPD attention immediately, before NC was even found. Maybe she felt like she needed to say something since the judge was going to "determine" his guilt or innocence as part of the custody hearing.

Why is it somehow her fault that no one listened to her?

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 09:33 PM
It was posted (thanks RC) that LE's exact statement which seems to be slightly at odds with this woman's statement was that there had been no confirmed sightings of NC since she was reported disappeared.

Any guesses as to what it would have taken for a reported sighting to become a confirmed sighting? Seems that even if the woman was totally wrong in a statement about the color or brand of clothing, to have spotted someone matching NC's description, at that specific time and place, would seem fairly credible. For some reason, as I read the eyewitness's affidavit, she comes across as fairly convinced to me that she saw NC. I imagine she'll be pretty convincing on the witness stand as well (in either a custody hearing, or a (hypothetical) criminal trial).

Here's a related question: Given the in-laws have stated that NC would never run without her phone, and her keys... and given the phone and keys were found in the house... wouldn't that alone be enough for LE to not consider any NC sightings as credible? [ Maybe the passing out of flyers, etc was just for the "optics" (make it appear as due diligence is being done). All the questions were rhetorical of course though... as the in-laws had already sealed the fact that she surely couldn't have gone running (without keys and phone). Even now, today, the statements from LE encouraging anyone with information to come forward... these requests are really just to manage the perception that all angles are being fully explored, right? After all, why would the in-laws lie? ]


I believe in some affadavit that someone said she never took her phone or keys.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 09:36 PM
I believe in some affadavit that someone said she never took her phone or keys.

But...but...but... I thought the in-laws stated that she was taught to run with her keys for self defense. Maybe this statement alone was enough for LE to not follow-up with this eyewitness (or any others) who may have reported a NC look-a-like that day.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 09:37 PM
Unbelievable.

Has it occured to you that you accused me twice without merit, using pretty insulting words yourself? I have explained twice that you were wrong in your take of what I said. I try very hard to keep the peace on this board and wouldn't go and throw insulting words around like a hypocrite to start something. You can read many of my posts in response to folks who believe BC may be innocent and find that I agree and am respectful to them. And if someone pointed out to me that I was wrong in the way I read a comment, especially if I had insulted them, I would apologize. Perhaps people are seeing that you are a little sensitive, taking things personally, not apologizing when you are corrected, and that upsets THEM.

I have seen several posters on here that have come a long way from their initial posts, in that they remain calm and reasonable and tend to ASK if it appears someone is being insulting before they just assume. Can you become one of those people? It will be much easier for us all to get along that way!

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 09:37 PM
It's clear that anyone who comes forward with an affidavit for either side is going to be scrutinized closely by those close to the case; it's probably a factor in making a decision to get involved or not. It's an unfortunate side effect of providing testimony; what may be very decent, upstanding, truthful people are going to be flambéed and have their privacy compromised. I can understand the incentive not to get involved.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 09:39 PM
Sounds like this lady may have an agenda.
Does she crave attention enough to want to be inserted as a 'star witness' ?
After contacting CPD on several occasions, why did she also feel the need to contact K&B ?
I think this woman will eventually be shredded on the witness stand by the DA.

You have got to be kidding? Of course...all of the people that came forward on NCs behalf are just trying to get justice for NC....but this woman is craving attention because she called police on July 13th to say she saw the missing woman, and then informed the defense attorneys of that fact when the CPD didn't respond to her repeated statements. I haven't seen any interviews with this woman, but she is craving attention. And JWB must be as well, right? Oh no...since she was submitting her statement on behalf of NC. This witness must be either crazy or lying. No chance that she is telling the truth about what she saw.

ncnative
10-15-2008, 09:40 PM
Perhaps I have missed the point of this forum. Is it actually to discuss details of the case or is it to run off anyone with splinters in their butts from perpetual fence riding. If Brad is actually found to be not guilty, will it have been worth all of the rudeness that has been extended to those of us who are not fully convinced?

What possible relevance could the square footage and value of her home have? If it is obvious and I have missed it, then please explain it to me and then I will extend a heartfelt apology for asking why it is relevant.

RWESAFE, JTF is only putting info out on the woman. That's part of the info. about her real estate property search. It makes a difference to me where she lives, especially since she's in my neighborhood. It makes a difference to me to know her age for several reasons (to ME). I know what her house looks like but that doesn't matter. It is just prt of the property search info.

We WS people have every right to examine every inch of info that we can find. If we are interested in this, we examine it. If you are not, why steam about it? It's not about the woman's square footage and we all know that. Just a little background info.

I would ask: what is the woman's mental health condition? Is she fine and dandy? Does she have any addictions? Any dementia? You know, WHAT is behind the woman? She might be a dear and wonderful reliable lady, and she might not. Just have to check it out. Isn't that what WSs do?

I'll add that there are so many people who run and walk here in Lochmere, that they blend in with one another unless they have something unusual about their appearance or demeanor. Let's give that lady a big fat dose of truth serum! :run: Maybe I'll waddle on over there right now.

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 09:40 PM
But...but...but... I thought the in-laws stated that she was taught to run with her keys for self defense. Maybe this statement alone was enough for LE to not follow-up with this eyewitness (or any others) who may have reported a NC look-a-like that day.

But at this point LE already knew that her keys and phone were at home. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 09:41 PM
But...but...but... I thought the in-laws stated that she was taught to run with her keys for self defense. Maybe this statement alone was enough for LE to not follow-up with this eyewitness (or any others) who may have reported a NC look-a-like that day. I hope LE used more than that criteria to not follow up. If they disregarded any witness sightings I hope it's because they have something like forensic or physical evidence that points them in a direction and not just because of a belief.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 09:45 PM
I hope LE used more than that criteria to not follow up. If they disregarded any witness sightings I hope it's because they have something like forensic or physical evidence that points them in a direction and not just because of a belief.

I'm sure that is true. And even if the family believed her to carry keys and she did not, I am certain they would WANT LE to follow up on any possible leads and sightings!

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 09:45 PM
RWESAFE, JTF is only putting info out on the woman. That's part of the info. about her real estate property search. It makes a difference to me where she lives, especially since she's in my neighborhood. It makes a difference to me to know her age for several reasons (to ME). I know what her house looks like but that doesn't matter. It is just prt of the property search info.

We WS people have every right to examine every inch of info that we can find. If we are interested in this, we examine it. If you are not, why steam about it? It's not about the woman's square footage and we all know that. Just a little background info.

I would ask: what is the woman's mental health condition? Is she fine and dandy? Does she have any addictions? Any dementia? You know, WHAT is behind the woman? She might be a dear and wonderful reliable lady, and she might not. Just have to check it out. Isn't that what WSs do?

I'll add that there are so many people who run and walk here in Lochmere, that they blend in with one another unless they have something unusual about their appearance or demeanor. Let's give that lady a big fat dose of truth serum! :run: Maybe I'll waddle on over there right now.

As an executive admin for a telecom company, I'd imagine she is pretty sane. That isn't a job for people with dementia. Where is your scrutiny of Gary Beard? What about JWB?

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 09:45 PM
It's clear that anyone who comes forward with an affidavit for either side is going to be scrutinized closely by those close to the case; it's probably a factor in making a decision to get involved or not. It's an unfortunate side effect of providing testimony; what may be very decent, upstanding, truthful people are going to be flambéed and have their privacy compromised. I can understand the incentive not to get involved.

That is a good point and I suppose it is especially a consideration living in a relatively small community. It kind of makes me wonder if there are potentially others out there who saw her that are just not up for public flaming and character assault.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 09:45 PM
It's clear that anyone who comes forward with an affidavit for either side is going to be scrutinized closely by those close to the case; it's probably a factor in making a decision to get involved or not. It's an unfortunate side effect of providing testimony; what may be very decent, upstanding, truthful people are going to be flambéed and have their privacy compromised. I can understand the incentive not to get involved.

Agreed. Even on this board, I think folks are very coupled to their current opinions, even folks who have done their best to only look at hard evidence. Still though, the essence of being biased/irrational is: when faced with new information/data... to maximize the significance of things that support one's belief, and to minimize/discount the significance of things that don't. [ It's human nature ]

If when you first read this affidavit, the first reaction was "how can I explain this in such a way that BC is still guilty...", then that may be a clue that the blindfold isn't completely on.

Similarly, if the first reaction was "Aha! This will put the lynch-mob in their place at last!", then it's a similar clue. :)

If when you read the affy, your reaction was "Interesting..., and good to add that to the list of other knowns we have, and factor it into my opinion..." that is good.

Same comments can be made when other stuff has come out (Windor's statements... if the first reaction was "I knew that BC was a bad egg...", then that's a clue... )

Nothing wrong at all with ripping the blindfold off, if that's the choice. But for those that want to try and keep it on (ie, remain objective/unbiased), my thought is it takes a fair amount of extra effort, especially when kicking the case around with everyone on WS... :)

jmflu
10-15-2008, 09:47 PM
That is a good point and I suppose it is especially a consideration living in a relatively small community. It kind of makes me wonder if there are potentially others out there who saw her that are just not up for public flaming and character assault.

Me personally, I would be less concerned about that, and more concerned about a murderer running loose! And if I didn't come forward, it would probably be because I would be afraid of the repurcussion from the accused!

But that's just me and I respect there are different points of view.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 09:47 PM
That is a good point and I suppose it is especially a consideration living in a relatively small community. It kind of makes me wonder if there are potentially others out there who saw her that are just not up for public flaming and character assault.

Indeed - have made this point numerous times. The custody hearing (and related publicity) has great potential to interfere with the criminal investigation and the achievement of justice. I find that interesting.

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 09:48 PM
I'm sure that is true. And even if the family believed her to carry keys and she did not, I am certain they would WANT LE to follow up on any possible leads and sightings! Yes I bet so. At this point I'm going to assume that CPD is following proper protocol in their investigation and are doing the job as they've been trained to do; I have no other basis to assume the opposite. If they gave this woman's sighting a pass there has got to be a reason for it, and I look forward to eventually learning what their reason was.

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 09:49 PM
Agreed. Even on this board, I think folks are very coupled to their current opinions, even folks who have done their best to only look at hard evidence. Still though, the essence of being biased/irrational is when faced with new information/data... to be maximize the significance of things that support one's belief, and to minimize/discount the significance of things that don't. [ It's human nature ]

If when you first read this affidavit, the first reaction was "how can I explain this in such a way that BC is still guilty...", then that may be a clue that the blindfold isn't completely on.

Similarly, if the first reaction was "Aha! This will put the lynch-mob in their place at last!", then it's a similar clue. :)

If when you read the affy, your reaction was "Interesting..., and good to add that to the list of other knowns we have, and factor it into my opinion..." that is good.

Same comments can be made when other stuff has come out (Windor's statements... if the first reaction was "I knew that BC was a bad egg...", then that's a clue... )

Nothing wrong at all with ripping the blindfold off, if that's the choice. But for those that want to try and keep it on (ie, remain objective/unbiased), my thought is it takes a fair amount of extra effort, especially when kicking the case around with everyone on WS... :)

My concern about JWBs affidavit was why he said Wilson. That bothers me. Was he trying to protect himself or protect her? Did he actually forget? I don't think it is relevant to his guilt or innocence, but I was bothered about the name thing.

And I will state this again....I believe every single person that has submitted an affidavit has told the truth with regards to what they believe to be the truth. Gary Beard, JWB, this woman, all of NCs friends, Brad's friends, the woman in the preschool parking lot....all of them.

cygnusx1
10-15-2008, 09:50 PM
Sounds like this lady may have an agenda.
Does she crave attention enough to want to be inserted as a 'star witness' ?
After contacting CPD on several occasions, why did she also feel the need to contact K&B ?
I think this woman will eventually be shredded on the witness stand by the DA.

CPD: If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police...
Zednick (on 7/13 before it became a murder case): I saw Nancy Cooper...
CPD: <Handing out fliers> If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police
Zednick to CPD: I saw Nancy Cooper...
CPD: <Handing out fliers> If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police
Zednick to CPD: I SAW NANCY COOPER...
CPD (1 month later): <Handing out fliers> If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police
Zednick to CPD: I SAW NANCY COOPER...
Media: BC is going to fight for custody of his kids this. Nobody has reported seeing NC the morning BC claims she went for a run.
Zednick to K&B: CPD keeps asking if people saw NC. I saw her, but they don't appear to hear me.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 09:50 PM
Agreed. Even on this board, I think folks are very coupled to their current opinions, even folks who have done their best to only look at hard evidence. Still though, the essence of being biased/irrational is when faced with new information/data... to be maximize the significance of things that support one's belief, and to minimize/discount the significance of things that don't. [ It's human nature ]

If when you first read this affidavit, the first reaction was "how can I explain this in such a way that BC is still guilty...", then that may be a clue that the blindfold isn't completely on.

Similarly, if the first reaction was "Aha! This will put the lynch-mob in their place at last!", then it's a similar clue. :)

If when you read the affy, your reaction was "Interesting..., and good to add that to the list of other knowns we have, and factor it into my opinion..." that is good.

Same comments can be made when other stuff has come out (Windor's statements... if the first reaction was "I knew that BC was a bad egg...", then that's a clue... )

Nothing wrong at all with ripping the blindfold off, if that's the choice. But for those that want to try and keep it on (ie, remain objective/unbiased), my thought is it takes a fair amount of extra effort, especially when kicking the case around with everyone on WS... :)

These are good points. I have to say that I was more, "That supports the BC bad egg theory..." when JWB's affidavit came out, but when the one today came out, I didn't automatically think the woman was lying. It was more of, "How can this be??" meaning, assuming it's true, how does that factor in?

ncsu95
10-15-2008, 09:51 PM
CPD: If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police...
Zednick (on 7/13 before it became a murder case): I saw Nancy Cooper...
CPD: <Handing out fliers> If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police
Zednick to CPD: I saw Nancy Cooper...
CPD: <Handing out fliers> If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police
Zednick to CPD: I SAW NANCY COOPER...
CPD (1 month later): <Handing out fliers> If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police
Zednick to CPD: I SAW NANCY COOPER...
Media: BC is going to fight for custody of his kids this. Nobody has reported seeing NC the morning BC claims she went for a run.
Zednick to K&B: CPD keeps asking if people saw NC. I saw her, but they don't appear to hear me.

:clap:

Of course, the woman must crave attention and have dementia.

Bob&Bob
10-15-2008, 09:51 PM
But...but...but... I thought the in-laws stated that she was taught to run with her keys for self defense. Maybe this statement alone was enough for LE to not follow-up with this eyewitness (or any others) who may have reported a NC look-a-like that day.


.......huh?

SleuthyGal
10-15-2008, 09:51 PM
That is a good point and I suppose it is especially a consideration living in a relatively small community. It kind of makes me wonder if there are potentially others out there who saw her that are just not up for public flaming and character assault. I sure hope that such scrutiny would not dissuade a witness who might have timely and centrally critical information in such a case from coming forward. In this Internet age with the ability to find info on just about anyone, someone coming forward has got to realize (or will, quickly) that not everyone will be committed to protecting their privacy. To some it may not matter; I think the pursuit of the truth makes it worth the sacrifice, but it certainly can't be easy on any of the players involved.

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 09:52 PM
Has it occured to you that you accused me twice without merit, using pretty insulting words yourself? I have explained twice that you were wrong in your take of what I said. I try very hard to keep the peace on this board and wouldn't go and throw insulting words around like a hypocrite to start something. You can read many of my posts in response to folks who believe BC may be innocent and find that I agree and am respectful to them. And if someone pointed out to me that I was wrong in the way I read a comment, especially if I had insulted them, I would apologize. Perhaps people are seeing that you are a little sensitive, taking things personally, not apologizing when you are corrected, and that upsets THEM.

I have seen several posters on here that have come a long way from their initial posts, in that they remain calm and reasonable and tend to ASK if it appears someone is being insulting before they just assume. Can you become one of those people? It will be much easier for us all to get along that way!


I have read many of your post and have noted that you are not very friendly with anyone who disagrees with you.

To my knowledge, I have not been corrected on the board have nothing to apologize for.

You can veil you snide comments to me and others by stating that we are too sensitive or stupid to "get" you and your sense of humor if you want, but I ain't buying it. I think you know full well how your remarks and responses will be inferred.

jmflu
10-15-2008, 09:54 PM
I have read many of your post and have noted that you are not very friendly with anyone who disagrees with you.

To my knowledge, I have not been corrected on the board have nothing to apologize for.

You can veil you snide comments to me and others by stating that we are too sensitive or stupid to "get" you and your sense of humor if you want, but I ain't buying it. I think you know full well how your remarks and responses will be inferred.

WOW. You are going too far. You are calling me a liar now.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 09:55 PM
If they gave this woman's sighting a pass there has got to be a reason for it...

Let's hope.

I must admit, I'm hard pressed to come up with a reasonable explanation that would have them discount it entirely. [ If LE has hard-evidence, and is so convinced that there's zero chance the woman saw NC, and have associated hard-evidence to substantiate that... then one would think an arrest would be within the realm of possibility before the end of the year at least...]

rwesafe
10-15-2008, 09:56 PM
I sure hope that such scrutiny would not dissuade a witness who might have timely and centrally critical information in such a case from coming forward. In this Internet age with the ability to find info on just about anyone, someone coming forward has got to realize (or will, quickly) that not everyone will be committed to protecting their privacy. To some it may not matter; I think the pursuit of the truth makes it worth the sacrifice, but it certainly can't be easy on any of the players involved.

That's for sure! I can't imagine having everyone know absolutely everything about my personal and financial life. It's nothing exciting, trust me...but I can imagine one would feel very violated just with basic information being all over the net about you.

jumpstreet
10-15-2008, 09:58 PM
CPD: If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police...
Zednick (on 7/13 before it became a murder case): I saw Nancy Cooper...
CPD: <Handing out fliers> If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police
Zednick to CPD: I saw Nancy Cooper...
CPD: <Handing out fliers> If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police
Zednick to CPD: I SAW NANCY COOPER...
CPD (1 month later): <Handing out fliers> If anybody has seen Nancy Cooper please contact the police
Zednick to CPD: I SAW NANCY COOPER...
Media: BC is going to fight for custody of his kids this. Nobody has reported seeing NC the morning BC claims she went for a run.
Zednick to K&B: CPD keeps asking if people saw NC. I saw her, but they don't appear to hear me.

That's funny... I like that Cygnus!