I believe one of the recent news articles mentioned it as well...
.....And?
I believe one of the recent news articles mentioned it as well...
.....And?
How do you know she moved to Hawaii?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Civil and criminal matters are usually, and ought to be, open to public inspection and scrutiny. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
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.
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?
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?
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".