Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #28

[jumpstreet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.