Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #13

[tarheelfan78]

I thought that was him. I went to the firm's webpage to see a pic but by the time I went back to the other window they had moved on!

If law enforcement has anything it may take a while to lead to the arrest. In the case of the Fort Bragg soldier Touma, she was killed in her hotel room in June but they just arrested someone two days ago. The Fayetteville police department made no comments and many did not even think they had any leads. But they got him!

I hope that the person or person(s) that were involved in Nancy Cooper's death will be brought to justice but I would rather the search warrants remain sealed because I want a conviction!:behindbar

 

[SleuthyGal]

No, I haven't been in Java Jive since this all happened but used to go frequently before the gas crunch.

I think we should have a websleuth pow-wow at Java Jive for the Caryites on this thread. Hey, I'll even bring the doggy that needs walking (and she's happy to go wherever at any time of day).

 

[Roy23]

I really believe that both Nancy and Brad stretched the truth and that is recognized in the affidavits. Some of the neighborhood people got an exaggerated story from Nancy. Not that a lot of it wasn't true. But a lot of it is not consistant with Brad being a control freak. I think this plays a lot into what is going on now.

 

[carolinalady]

Then the stickers from 2007 should still be visible on the plates until removed for the new or pasted over by the new. There were no stickers period - no old ones, no new ones.

Right, I saw the pictures. The 2007 ones could be stuck to the 2007 registration card and the 2006 to the 2006 registration card.

 

[reddress58]

I think we should have a websleuth pow-wow at Java Jive for the Caryites on this thread. Hey, I'll even bring the doggy that needs walking (and she's happy to go wherever at any time of day).

Great idea! And I haven't seen the dump site yet, either. Maybe a field trip after coffee.

 

[momto3kids]

YooHoo! Saint & Momof3, you can't leave until you tell me what happened!! I couldn't hear it!

The one thing I did find interesting is for Judge Stephens to say he sat at his kitchen table at 2am to sign for the SW. Is this normal to do at this hour?

Aww reddress58...I'm sorry. I'll be back.. I have to run an errand before they close at 5.

 

[jumpstreet]

... Plus, I've seen her running before. Because she is/was so tall and lean, you can't help but take a second look. That is why I had a feeling she never went running. SOMEONE would have noticed. There are a ton of us out running and walking that time of morning. Lots of peple in Lochmere are early risers...and a lot have doggys that need walking.

This was a sticky point for me too - being familiar with those same trails - they're going to be quite busy after 7am (even before), on a hot Saturday morning in July.

But on the other hand, how do we know for sure that folks didn't see her running that morning, report it to LE, and were then asked to keep it confidential?

 

[Topsail Girl]

I think we should have a websleuth pow-wow at Java Jive for the Caryites on this thread. Hey, I'll even bring the doggy that needs walking (and she's happy to go wherever at any time of day).

I'm not a Caryite but I'd love to get together and do that!! I'm more of the Raleigh-wood type :cooler:

EAT - I'm actually meeting board friends from Michelle Young's case for lunch tomorrow. We usually meet about once a month on a Friday and chat it up.

 

[carolinalady]

The one thing I did find interesting is for Judge Stephens to say he sat at his kitchen table at 2am to sign for the SW. Is this normal to do at this hour?

Aww reddress58...I'm sorry. I'll be back.. I have to run an errand before they close at 5.

I thought it was interesting, too.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Great idea! And I haven't seen the dump site yet, either. Maybe a field trip after coffee.

Yes! Send me a PM or something. I'll absolutely meet you and other sleuthies. Maybe at the end we can stop by the CPD and have them arrest my golden retriever--she occasionally steals lawn ornaments (not kidding). :behindbar

 

[reddress58]

I'm not a Caryite but I'd love to get together and do that!! I'm more of the Raleigh-wood type :cooler:

EAT - I'm actually meeting board friends from Michelle Young's case for lunch tomorrow. We usually meet about once a month on a Friday and chat it up.

As much as you may read otherwise in the media, we ARE accepting of "outsiders". LOL You are WELCOME to join us...anyone is who lives nearby.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm not a Caryite but I'd love to get together and do that!! I'm more of the Raleigh-wood type :cooler:

Absolutely! Raleighites and all neighboring townites included!

 

[raisincharlie]

Long time lurker, first time poster. :woohoo:

Concerning the registration stickers on the plates, I'm not sure of their significance other than their absence from the plate, but...I don't know anyone who pulls off those stickers when they get new ones -- they stick too well. So where are the old stickers? Seems like there would be some evidence of them.

My second question is for RC since he seems to have a good grip on the legal stuff, but everyone else feel free to chime in: Would a subpoena be issued for Interact in the custody case if NC's parents didn't KNOW there was something in their records? If they only suspected, could a subpoena be issued?

Hi Daphne

Yes - where are the old stickers on an old plate ? I can't answer your question about Interact with complete accuracy. I suppose if there were a good faith basis to believe Nancy had some dealing with Interact that the family could indeed get a subpeona. In this case we do not know if the subpeona was for a person or a record, although it would indeed be interesting. It was in fact the plaintiff's lawyer that filed the subpeona for Interact - just my gut feeling, the name Interact and an association to Nancy was at least familiar to someone.

Sorry I could not define that further for you.

 

[reddress58]

Yes! Send me a PM or something. I'll absolutely meet you and other sleuthies. Maybe at the end we can stop by the CPD and have them arrest my golden retriever--she occasionally steals lawn ornaments (not kidding). :behindbar

I see there are a lot of members logged on right now...probably catching up on previous threads. Let's wait and see who else is interested and plan a meet-up.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I see there are a lot of members logged on right now...probably catching up on previous threads. Let's wait and see who else is interested and plan a meet-up.

good idea!

 

[raisincharlie]

The one thing I did find interesting is for Judge Stephens to say he sat at his kitchen table at 2am to sign for the SW. Is this normal to do at this hour?

Aww reddress58...I'm sorry. I'll be back.. I have to run an errand before they close at 5.

It happens Mt3k - LE wants to get a warrant as rapidly as possible to avoid loss of evidence. As I recall, this warrant was obtained and the search implemented in less than 12 hours of Nancy's case being changed from missing to a homicide - in that case - 2 am does not seem unreasonable at all.

 

[jumpstreet]

Regarding the mention of a lot of "heresay" in the affidavits submitted for the SWs, I assume that there would have to be more than just the "heresay" contained within the custody affidavits to justify a SW (especially the 2 follow-up ones).

Is it reasonable to conclude that at the very least that LE's case has more substance/justification/probable-cause than the information contained within the custody affidavits (from either side)?

[ Or would the information in those custody affidavits alone be sufficient justification for the follow-up SWs (I assume not) ]

 

[Roy23]

Regarding the mention of a lot of "heresay" in the affidavits submitted for the SWs, I assume that there would have to be more than just the "heresay" contained within the custody affidavits to justify a SW (especially the 2 follow-up ones).

Is it reasonable to conclude that at the very least that LE's case has more substance/justification/probable-cause than the information contained within the custody affidavits (from either side)?

[ Or would the information in those custody affidavits alone be sufficient justification for the follow-up SWs (I assume not) ]

Who knows? It can be circumstancial evidence or something much more. They just have some evidence of something.

 

[raisincharlie]

Regarding the mention of a lot of "heresay" in the affidavits submitted for the SWs, I assume that there would have to be more than just the "heresay" contained within the custody affidavits to justify a SW (especially the 2 follow-up ones).

Is it reasonable to conclude that at the very least that LE's case has more substance/justification/probable-cause than the information contained within the custody affidavits (from either side)?

[ Or would the information in those custody affidavits alone be sufficient justification for the follow-up SWs (I assume not) ]

The custody affidavits from the friends are dated July 22 and July 23 - the search was almost a week prior - they could have not had anything to do with the affidavit required for a search warrant. The affidavit for a search warrant is supplied by an LE officer and is based on his training, experience and observations. What he says is hearsey until evidence is found to confirm it.

 

[Roy23]

The custody affidavits from the friends are dated July 22 and July 23 - the search was almost a week prior - they could have not had anything to do with the affidavit required for a search warrant. The affidavit for a search warrant is supplied by an LE officer and is based on his training, experience and observations. What he says is hearsey until evidence is found to confirm it.

What if affidavits to authorities differ from the custody affidavits? Could this be a reason that LE wants them sealed?