Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #27

[Bob&Bob]

I believe one of the recent news articles mentioned it as well...

.....And?

 

[jmflu]

.....And?

If the article says she lives in Hawaii, I don't see any reason to pursue the truth of that, especially as her affidavit was notarized there as well... ?

Do you have some reason to doubt it?

 

[RKAB]

How do you know she moved to Hawaii?

Sigh...I am *assuming* that she did because of the seal on her affidavit. If she did not move there and she is just visiting then I retract my statement of her moving there and I am only insanely jealous that she is visiting there.

 

[Bob&Bob]

If the article says she lives in Hawaii, I don't see any reason to pursue the truth of that, especially as her affidavit was notarized there as well... ?

Do you have some reason to doubt it?

If she is the same person who gave the review
for the place she visited in Hawaii it seems a little odd.

I no longer provide links.

You can google it.

 

[raisincharlie]

WRAL noon news just reported that CPD has not turned over anything requested by K & B for 10 am this morning. No report on what is happening or how the issue will be handled yet.

 

[tarheellvr]

If she is the same person who gave the review
for the place she visited in Hawaii it seems a little odd.

I no longer provide links.

You can google it.

Every time I've come to this board lately, B&B seems to want to get "something stirred up". I found this forum much more pleasant when he/she wasn't around so much.

We're here for Nancy.......we speak while she can't......we're sleuthers looking for the truth.......we should stick to the facts and the reason for this forum. Nitpicking everthing said or posted is ridiculous.

Thanks for not providing links any longer....you've done quite enough!

 

[boxy]

I too, admire, that she was able to come forward. I feel badly for her that she's now being hounded, her words questioned and people making uncalled for remarks. This is why more people don't come forward at times like this. It makes their current life He**. You have people searching them out and posting every possible link they can find, opening them up to unwanted contact. They've not asked to be named in this but yet they were. There names should never have been made public. Let's respect people's privacy and choices.

Unfortunately, my family does not support me wading into the circus that this has become so out of respect for them, I won't be.

Civil and criminal matters are usually, and ought to be, open to public inspection and scrutiny. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

[RKAB]

We're here for Nancy.......we speak while she can't......we're sleuthers looking for the truth.......we should stick to the facts and the reason for this forum. Nitpicking everthing said or posted is ridiculous.

Thanks for not providing links any longer....you've done quite enough!

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[RKAB]

Sorry, double post...it kept saying the server was busy.

 

[RKAB]

Civil and criminal matters are usually, and ought to be, open to public inspection and scrutiny. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Yes, I agree but I don't think public scrutiny should also include derogatory statements that are unfounded and uncalled for (eg. she has an axe to grind, etc.). Scrutiny shouldn't mean people being able to insult or defame a person because they don't like or don't agree with what the affidavit says.

 

[jmflu]

Yes, I agree but I don't think public scrutiny should also include derogatory statements that are unfounded and uncalled for (eg. she has an axe to grind, etc.). Scrutiny shouldn't mean people being able to insult or defame a person because they don't like or don't agree with what the affidavit says.

True, true, true...

 

[raisincharlie]

Yes, I agree but I don't think public scrutiny should also include derogatory statements that are unfounded and uncalled for (eg. she has an axe to grind, etc.). Scrutiny shouldn't mean people being able to insult or defame a person because they don't like or don't agree with what the affidavit says.

RKAB - I have to take the blame for the comment "axe to grind". I did indeed make this comment, don't think anyone else did. However, my comment was made in response to the implication that JWB was just punishing Brad (Brad does like to use that word alot and there were aparently lots of people punishing him based on his affidavits and deposition). My comment was a question: why would someone with an axe to grind come forward with an untruthful affidavit, knowing the potential of possibly being called in to court, having to take an oath and having to testify ?

So for throwing this out there I do apologize, however, my comment was meant to show the silliness of someone doing so. My conclusion was that JWB would not do this for that reason. Again - sorry for my terminology.

 

[RaleighNC]

Civil and criminal matters are usually, and ought to be, open to public inspection and scrutiny. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Ultimately, you are absolutely correct.

This is the closest I have ever followed a case. I have followed others slightly via WRAL posting things like search warrants, etc. but this case has my attention more than any other.

I guess it hits home how much the digital age of information has altered our lives. Most cases in "days of old", the information flow would be slow and usually limited to text or copies of affidavits, or reporters trudging to the records offices and viewing the material and then writing about it. Only recently are we seeing 7 hours of digital video posted on a news site within days of it being completed.

This level of information seems unprecedented and lets the sun shine in on place it had never shone before! But - you are right - freedom of information is at the heart of the matter here and the fact that it's just "easier" now does not change the fundamentals.

Guess I am still no used to this "immediate information and gobs of it" world we live in now.

 

[raisincharlie]

DA says K & B are on a "fishing expedition":

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3734923/


Responding to a subpoena from Cooper's attorneys for Cary police to turn over all evidence in the murder case, District Attorney Colon Willoughby said the request was unreasonable and oppressive and that turning over the evidence would jeopardize the ongoing murder investigation.

Willoughby also said in the response that Brad Cooper has been uncooperative with police and has refused to do further interviews with authorities since July 15.

 

[RKAB]

So for throwing this out there I do apologize, however, my comment was meant to show the silliness of someone doing so. My conclusion was that JWB would not do this for that reason. Again - sorry for my terminology.

That's okay :blowkiss:

I just don't like to see ex's stereotyped. I'm pretty sure there aren't many of Brad's ex's who are pining away for him, bitter and angry and wanting to make him pay for all his past mistakes. He certainly seems more than able to dig his own hole without any help from us. And you're right, no one is going to put their name to something that they aren't able to back up in a courtroom (ok, well, maybe Brad but ok, I mean honest people).

 

[garner_nc]

Wake County prosecutors says attorneys for Brad Cooper are "going on a fishing expedition" to prepare a potential defense should their client be charged in the July 12 slaying of his wife, Nancy Cooper.

I don't see it as a fishing expedition because by law - if he is charged then they would have to turn over all information anyway - it is called Discovery. Asking before he is charged I can also understand. The judge is deciding did he do this or not and he wants to know what information she has to make that decision. I think that is fair. I would want to know what I was up against if I was "innocent".

 

[boxy]

Yes, I agree but I don't think public scrutiny should also include derogatory statements that are unfounded and uncalled for (eg. she has an axe to grind, etc.). Scrutiny shouldn't mean people being able to insult or defame a person because they don't like or don't agree with what the affidavit says.

Every piece of information in contested legal matters should be viewed critically to see if it stands up.

I think Ms. Ball's affy begs for careful scrutiny due to her contemporaneous actions, or lack thereof. She cohabited with and became engaged to someone who she now claims was emotionally abusive. Did she communicate her concerns of emotional abuse to a neutral party at the time? What does she mean by mentally cruel? It appears Brad left her for Nancy and was living in the same building. To me, that would provide a rationale for her current perceptions of the nature of the relationship, as well as why she would want to break her lease to leave the building. Did she report his entry into her apartment? How does she know that Brad remembers her name?

 

[tarheellvr]

Every piece of information in contested legal matters should be viewed critically to see if it stands up.

I think Ms. Ball's affy begs for careful scrutiny due to her contemporaneous actions, or lack thereof. She cohabited with and became engaged to someone who she now claims was emotionally abusive. Did she communicate her concerns of emotional abuse to a neutral party at the time? What does she mean by mentally cruel? It appears Brad left her for Nancy and was living in the same building. To me, that would provide a rationale for her current perceptions of the nature of the relationship, as well as why she would want to break her lease to leave the building. Did she report his entry into her apartment? How does she know that Brad remembers her name?

According to her affidavit SHE left Brad....SHE called off the engagement.

Ummmmm...there's a good reason people choose not to get involved, even if it means doing the right thing. Wonder what that reason is?????????????

 

[Anderson]

Every piece of information in contested legal matters should be viewed critically to see if it stands up.

I think Ms. Ball's affy begs for careful scrutiny due to her contemporaneous actions, or lack thereof. She cohabited with and became engaged to someone who she now claims was emotionally abusive. Did she communicate her concerns of emotional abuse to a neutral party at the time? What does she mean by mentally cruel? It appears Brad left her for Nancy and was living in the same building. To me, that would provide a rationale for her current perceptions of the nature of the relationship, as well as why she would want to break her lease to leave the building. Did she report his entry into her apartment? How does she know that Brad remembers her name?

IF you have any reason to believe J's affidavit is not the truth, then I can understand these questions, but you clearly don't. I wonder if you are just reacting to a feeling that you have (just a thought). You can read the posts written by Calgary123 for first hand information.

You can also read the posts written by the person that you are responding to. Personally, I think that you should be particularly respectful to RKAB. She doesn't have to share any information with us, but she does, and bravely I might add.

 

[raisincharlie]

Wake County prosecutors says attorneys for Brad Cooper are "going on a fishing expedition" to prepare a potential defense should their client be charged in the July 12 slaying of his wife, Nancy Cooper.

I don't see it as a fishing expedition because by law - if he is charged then they would have to turn over all information anyway - it is called Discovery. Asking before he is charged I can also understand. The judge is deciding did he do this or not and he wants to know what information she has to make that decision. I think that is fair. I would want to know what I was up against if I was "innocent".

Why do you think a civil court judge would have a right to the information contained in the criminal investigation files for a civil matter? Tharrington Smith has said they will prove Brad was involved in Nancy's murder - they definitely do not have access to the investigation files. They are apparently proceeding on information they themselves have obtained since Nancy's murder.