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

[cygnusx1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[SleuthyGal]

I have zero doubt that this affiant is positive she believes she saw Nancy. I believe she did see someone and thinks that person was Nancy. What I don't know is: was the woman she saw running, in fact, Nancy? I don't know. And if I don't know I can't assume it absolutely was Nancy. The other things I don't know are what evidence exists that proves Nancy never left her house alive that Sat. morning? We're working with such a small subset of the total.

 

[jumpstreet]

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.

In an 'ideal world' sure, the scrutiny would not dissuade. And maybe for many or even most, that's true. However, there's some for which it isn't.

You read MH's affy, about the good-cop/bad-cop... you think man... this cat was just a friend, and now he's getting grilled, folks toasting him on the internet...I'm not saying jack about this case... will stay uninvolved.

On the flip side, maybe sometimes the publicity can help bring folks forward (who wouldn't otherwise know to come forward). [ e.g. the Wilson/Winstead chick... her friend was watching the videos, then called her "you're not going to believe what BC just said!". Next thing you know, chick is on the horn with T&S, and her affy is on the web for us too.

Still though, I'm 100% convinced that it would have been better (in hindsight) for none of the custody materials (the original affys, video deposition, nothing) to have been made public knowledge. If nothing else, because minor children are involved.

Additionally, because of the chance, that it would very well interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation. Out of an abundance of caution, the custody judge should have ordered that stuff out of the public eye. Definitely convinced of that.

Granted, things might not have been as exciting on WS... but... IMO, would have been better for all involved, and (quite possibly) resulted in justice getting served even sooner!

 

[Just the Fax]

:clap:

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

No sure at all about dementia, but no doubt she was looking for attention .
She told CPD in very clear terms and they had her statement to consider in the scope of the investigation. Sounds like she wanted her 'name in lights', so she called K&B.

 

[jumpstreet]

No sure at all about dementia, but no doubt she was looking for attention .
She told CPD in very clear terms and they had her statement to consider in the scope of the investigation. Sounds like she wanted her 'name in lights', so she called K&B.

Nah, if she was just attention grubbing, she would have jumped as soon as K&B posted their request for info. My opinion: She's convinced it was NC, and therefore she can't understand why LE hasn't explicitly cleared BC by now.

[ Come to think of it, I'd like to know the (specific) answer to that question too... ]

 

[SleuthyGal]

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.

Well the info is already out there in public records accessible on the Internet; the difference is your name is not being published by the media and associated with a legal case. Again, I doubt every affiant is interested in publicity; there have got to be hundreds of more pleasurable ways to achieve one's 15 min if that is a goal.

 

[rwesafe]

I have zero doubt that this affiant is positive she believes she saw Nancy. I believe she did see someone and thinks that person was Nancy. What I don't know is: was the woman she saw running, in fact, Nancy? I don't know. And if I don't know I can't assume it absolutely was Nancy. The other things I don't know are what evidence exists that proves Nancy never left her house alive that Sat. morning? We're working with such a small subset of the total.

True. Given that NC was so tall, I would assume that would have also stood out in her mind. I mean there may be a number of women with similar features, but she was taller than most. It would be interesting to know what exactly it was that made them dismiss the (alleged) sighting.

 

[jmflu]

Nah, if she was just attention grubbing, she would have jumped as soon as K&B posted their request for info. My opinion: She's convinced it was NC, and therefore she can't understand why LE hasn't explicitly cleared BC by now.

[ Come to think of it, I'd like to know the (specific) answer to that question too... ]

Jump, I really admire how you don't get offended and are so easy to converse with, even when you are posting with someone you disagree with.

 

[rwesafe]

Well the info is already out there in public records accessible on the Internet; the difference is your name is not being published by the media and associated with a legal case. Again, I doubt every affiant is interested in publicity; there have got to be hundreds of more pleasurable ways to achieve one's 15 min if that is a goal.

That is true, and if the swinging rumors are true, and I not implying that they are, but if they are, perhaps one of the people that saw her was involved in that activity and is fearful that all of that would come out.....I mean it's unlikely, but it is possible.

 

[Just the Fax]

Nah, if she was just attention grubbing, she would have jumped as soon as K&B posted their request for info. My opinion: She's convinced it was NC, and therefore she can't understand why LE hasn't explicitly cleared BC by now.

[ Come to think of it, I'd like to know the (specific) answer to that question too... ]

Sounds to me that CPD knows she is mistaken cause their evidence does not support NC jogging after 7 am. Obviously that fact will be crystal clear when there is an arrest and the DA lays out their case.

 

[jmflu]

Sounds to me that CPD knows she is mistaken cause their evidence does not support NC jogging after 7 am. Obviously that fact will be crystal clear when there is an arrest and the DA lays out their case.

That's what I believe as well.