Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #17

[momto3kids]

also, in re: the purse.

Lochmere is safe enough, heck our area by and large is, that there are plenty of folks who don't lock doors, who don't lock cars, etc. Whether there's some statement that she and Brad were typically conscientious about locking things and so this makes it odd, so be it. I haven't seen that.

Lochmere is safe...it is if you are concerned for your safety.
It is NOT safe currently with the large amount of break-ins occuring in Lochmere. Look at the website CPD has posted and see how close they are occuring near NC.

For someone who was needing every penny at the time...not wise to leave a valuable purse and its contents in the car. IMO

Ask my daughter what it has been like to have hers stolen....hers btw is sitting at the bottom of Lochmere Lake like all the others.

 

[d99gr81]

I visited in person on Tues afternoon and I was surprised to find that it was not as remote as I had imagined. There were no houses on the street of the cul-de-sac where Nancy's body was found but there was ALOT of construction on Fielding leading into that street. In fact, there was a semi parked at the corner partially blocking the entrance and we almost missed it. While we were there (at the site) probably 10 minutes, three trucks came into the cul-de-sac to turn around.



I'm not a runner, but I just can't see Nancy choosing this route as part of her run. I had to check it out myself to see what it's like. NO WAY!

She obviously was one that kept up with the Joneses...who is to say she didn't jog that way to see how the new houses were coming alone? I would.

 

[2Daughters1Dog]

I totally agree with this. If she had no money for groceries, what better way to make sure she and kids got to eat. I wouldn't have given her money for groceries. Why, so BC could get his hands on it?

Where's the disconnect between whether he gave her money or not?

I just find it incredibly hard to believe that she had zero money and had to essentially beg others to feed her and her kids and if so many folks saw and really believed it, they would basically stand by and let that type of behavior go unchallenged.

As to "so BC could get his hands on it" - any affidavit claim he rifled through her pruse and emptied her wallet all the time?

 

[2Daughters1Dog]

Morning everyone. 2daughters if you'd like a thread for just the facts go start one and I'll help you add to it as best I can.

who deletes the posts that aren't facts? Moderators?

 

[Topsail Girl]

who deletes the posts that aren't facts? Moderators?

I suppose we can ask the moderators to help if someone posts something that is not a fact and refuses to delete or edit it.

 

[2Daughters1Dog]

Oh yeah and another thing that bugs me BC said he went to look for Carrie but didn't have her address...duh...and went looking for her car....hmmmm...how dumb does that sound to you guys?
HOw did he know where to go and what her car was like and omigod this all sounds so not right!

I believe he said he didn't know her EXACT address, but went to the subdivision/community ( a townhouse as I recall). If he knew what her car looked like, presumably it would have been parked in front of her unit.

 

[MoonFlwr]

I suppose we can ask the moderators to help if someone posts something that is not a fact and refuses to delete or edit it.

I wonder how practical it is? It sounds as thought it might open a whole beehive of problems, with arguing? (just thinking out loud).What citerion would be used for it to meet the 'fact' standard, for example?

 

[carolinalady]

I wonder how practical it is? It sounds as thought it might open a whole beehive of problems, with arguing? (just thinking out loud).

It could be a "no discussion" thread like the photos, media, etc.

 

[2Daughters1Dog]

What are anyone's thoughts of DD affidavit #17 about Katie? If NC and BC were in the so called ~hate mode~, and NC talked back to him in front of others at the party.........Did this set him off? Did he sit and stew over this and wait for her to come home?

In his eyes this would be embarrassing and belittling.

that's a whole lot of projecting based on the affidavit statement:

"...Brad did not seem to understand what Katie wanted or needed - he complained that he could not tell. Nancy, frustrated, told him to pay more attention to the signals, since Katie did not talk yet."

 

[MoonFlwr]

It could be a "no discussion" thread like the photos, media, etc.

Ok, understood

When would it be passable as a fact?

 

[momto3kids]

Where's the disconnect between whether he gave her money or not?

I just find it incredibly hard to believe that she had zero money and had to essentially beg others to feed her and her kids and if so many folks saw and really believed it, they would basically stand by and let that type of behavior go unchallenged.

As to "so BC could get his hands on it" - any affidavit claim he rifled through her pruse and emptied her wallet all the time?

2d1d....you are so way off base.

This is what happens when people get on and only read a portion of a conversation like you just did.

First, I was responding to Fran's post and it was quoted in my response which you failed to show....so let me show you what I was responding to since you are wanting to point the finger at me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fran
I've actually helped a friend in need, not by offering charity, it would hurt their pride. But by having them do things around the house, paying them a decent wage and making it more of a get together type thing with talking, both of us working, stopping for a meal, etc.

IMO, that's most likely what Nancy's friends were doing with her.

Oh, yeah, just MY guess.

FWIW
fran

I never said BEG, you did.
"So BC could get his hands on it" was not referring to $$$$$, it was referring to food. That was our discussion remember...FOOD.
Read again what you quoted me in saying...I would NOT give her $$. But yet you bring up wallet.
Challenge his behavior? Who was going to? Everyone states they hardly saw him and if they did he want upstairs. That IS in the affidavits.

 

[EntreNous]

I thought WS was a think tank of sorts. A place to knock around possibilities in an effort to mete out an eventual conclusion, no? Since this isn't a court of law I personally don't see a problem with individual theories and hypothetical scenarios.

Why so defensive 2D1D? Is this personal for you on some level? Because I think members here are not trying to be disrespectful. They're just trying to understand a terrible crime and leaning in a statistically likely direction.

 

[momto3kids]

that's a whole lot of projecting based on the affidavit statement:

"...Brad did not seem to understand what Katie wanted or needed - he complained that he could not tell. Nancy, frustrated, told him to pay more attention to the signals, since Katie did not talk yet."

Most everyone on here are projecting ideas based on the affidavits and media.

NEWS to 2d1d...there is also a THEORY thread. You might be interested in all the theories or so called projecting that is done there.

 

[2Daughters1Dog]

BINGO

Who owns the SUV???

personally, it seems waaaay too much attention is being paid to the lack of data on her BMW station wagon - especially as regards "who owned it".

But I would say, I don't believe the TAGS transfer from one owner to another ("we should be able to find the new owner based on the WPN tag") if it were sold in some way.

 

[momto3kids]

I thought WS was a think tank of sorts. A place to knock around possibilities in an effort to mete out an eventual conclusion, no? Since this isn't a court of law I personally don't see a problem with individual theories and hypothetical scenarios.

Why so defensive 2D1D? Is this personal for you on some level? Because I think members here are not trying to be disrespectful. They're just trying to understand a terrible crime and leaning in a statistically likely direction.

EN....You're right.
Tricia would have to take a very high percentage of all the posts off WS (not just NC) if it was a fact only website.

This case seems to be very sensitive to you 2d1d....

 

[Jess]

that's a whole lot of projecting based on the affidavit statement:

"...Brad did not seem to understand what Katie wanted or needed - he complained that he could not tell. Nancy, frustrated, told him to pay more attention to the signals, since Katie did not talk yet."

This is what we do here. It is only in a court of law that the standard becomes innocent until proven guilty. When LE question, do you think they go "Oops, innocent until proven guilty, can't ask that, think that, question that/" They work with a lot of 'what if's , and their guts as they look at the evidence.

We use what we can see as released by LE, the statements by the main players to form our own conclusions or speculations. What we think, what scenarios we come up with matter naught to the perpetrator. We are not his jury .

This is the wrong place to be if you don't like deductive reasoning ( right or wrong) or speculation.

 

[2Daughters1Dog]

Most everyone on here are projecting ideas based on the affidavits and media.

NEWS to 2d1d...there is also a THEORY thread. You might be interested in all the theories or so called projecting that is done there.

Statements from your post:

1NC talked back to him in front of others at the party.........2Did this set him off? 3Did he sit and stew over this and wait for her to come home?

4In his eyes this would be embarrassing and belittling.


see - the way I've numbered the items. #2 & #3 actually make PERFECTLY good sense. They really do. it is entirely possible. But you also said #1 & 4:

she talked back to him
in his eyes it WOULD BE

no way from what we have to say either was the case.

 

[2Daughters1Dog]

deductive reasoning? LOL.

Speculation and gossiping - absolutely.

 

[Jess]

YES deductive reasoning . It has been amazing on how many cases, the posters have come very close to the truth or have been right on the button. Sure there have been wild and crazy theories posted, but it's a MESSAGE Board !! That's why we are here !!!

 

[2Daughters1Dog]

This, like most of the other speculation that has been posted here about Cisco, is incorrect -- laughably so. Brad's job at Cisco does not involve "scoring" any contracts.

wowzers