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

[jmflu]

Perhaps another woman will come forward and say, "No that was me jogging that morning."

And that would be great, because we know the affiant did not see ANYONE ELSE that morning!

 

[RaleighNC]

Would the police not follow up with her and tell her that she saw somebody else instead of letting it linger? Possibly show her a photo of the other person?

WHY did CPD pass out fliers if they were going to dismiss any info they got from them as just regurgitation of the flier?

This person is not credible because they can't state the color of the shirt/shorts she was wearing? I can't remember what my co-workers are wearing right now even after I have been in a meeting with them earlier today.

She did say that she spoke with someone when she gave her statement - so it's not that they have been totally unresponsive. The other officers that she had spoken to may have brought the info back - reviewed her statement (it was on file) and understood why it was dismissed as not needing follow up and they did not.

Is it right to leave her hanging? Perhaps not, but - if they know it is impossible for her to have seen her, then how could they follow up - what would they tell her if she became more and more adamant that she SAW HER? It is possible that following up and telling her why her sighting was not possible would jeopardize their case.

I don't believe that her vague description of clothing is the reason that they have not followed up.

With the focus and the expected intense scrutiny of all their police work by K&B, I believe that the CPD have a reason for taking this statement and not following up.

 

[raisincharlie]

We don't know if this woman is telling the truth about anything. However, as a citizen of this area, I would expect that by now my law enforcement representatives would have had a documented interview with this woman, unless of course they were swamped with leads, which seems not to be the case since they spent a lot of time asking locals to say whether they saw Nancy out or not, going so far as to stop traffic.

Yet we don't know if they did everything they should have or not. All we can say is that this affidavit looks bad toward them and damages the potential case against Brad. There will certainly be more to be said about it. Perhaps forensic evidence will be so certain that it will be reasonable to believe that this woman was simply mistaken. Perhaps another woman will come forward and say, "No that was me jogging that morning." Perhaps the witness was a kook. Perhaps she saw Nancy. One thing though, if LE didn't follow up on it because they were too busy (something we don't know), then I bet it just slid up on the to-do list.

I guess my point is, if Nancy's clothes were found at the scene of her body but not on her body and those clothes do not consist of a "light" shirt - why should LE go back and talk with this woman - what is there to talk about? My other point is she says she talked to an LE person on the 13th and as noted from her cited area of contact with the person she believes to be Nancy - searches were under way - why exactly waste time interviewing someone who cannot tell you where Nancy is ? You are searching the area where she said she saw her - what else exactly can be done? Was talking at that time going to find Nancy ?

ETA - I think she is telling the truth about what she thought she saw.

 

[rwesafe]

And that would be great, because we know the affiant did not see ANYONE ELSE that morning!

Really? How is this thoughtfully discussing? It is rude and arrogant. Why in your opinion is no one in the world credible except JA and friends? You requested no attacks, mocking and sarcasm and this response is demeaning to that woman and sarcastic.

 

[jmflu]

Really? How is this thoughtfully discussing? It is rude and arrogant. Why in your opinion is no one in the world credible except JA and friends? You requested no attacks, mocking and sarcasm and this response is demeaning to that woman and sarcastic.

No, it's not... you're misreading! I am serious! If this woman saw a woman she thought was Nancy, and someone else comes forward and says, "No, that was me," then since we know the woman saw no one else that morning, it's not like the woman who comes forward could have been one of several!

Easy, rwesafe!

 

[jumpstreet]

I bet Pat Bazemore is on this right now and questioning her detectives!

Hopefully she's also asking them... "and just how many other witnesses, and folks with helpful information have y'all not gotten around to calling back yet..."

 

[jmflu]

Hopefully she's also asking them... "and just how many other witnesses, and folks with helpful information have y'all not gotten around to calling back yet..."

I seriously doubt that.

 

[jumpstreet]

It will be interesting if (and if so, if what way) that CPD responds to this. Any helpful response they provide will no doubt be more than they would have, had this woman not come forward.

The woman's statement is in the media now due to the custody hearing (otherwise, it may or may not be in the media).

Even if CPD aren't worried about this witness, T&S may be scrambling...
From K&B perspective, if CPD provides something that refutes it, well, it's info they (K&B) wouldn't otherwise have had access to. If they don't... then well, it helps the custody case (murder aspect) of it tremendously. Win-win for K&B...

In hindsight, regardless of what info they have access to, CPD would have been well-served to have made this woman feel like she wasn't being completely ignored.

[ But again, I respect the fact that CPD is very busy, and no doubt can't be expected to be completely perfect every single day... ]

 

[jumpstreet]

I seriously doubt that.

You doubt there's other witnesses, or you doubt she's asking them that?

 

[jmflu]

You doubt there's other witnesses, or you doubt she's asking them that?

I doubt she's asking them that. I really think she is aware of every detail.

JMO... they dismissed this woman's comments because they weren't valuable for some reason. (i.e. They knew SOMEthing that this woman's information did not jive with.)

I really can't wait for CPD to come back on this one...

 

[SleuthyGal]

As for CPD not getting back to the woman...this may fall under the 'absolutely no comment' restriction. Info comes in (perhaps seems to fall into a black hole), but the police are not going to share any details with anyone outside of the investigation, even with a witness who came forward.

 

[jmflu]

As for CPD not getting back to the woman...this may fall under the 'absolutely no comment' restriction. Info comes in (perhaps seems to fall into a black hole), but the police are not going to share any details with anyone outside of the investigation.

Well, crap. That means they will be putting up with a lot of bashing perhaps for no reason.

 

[jumpstreet]

I doubt she's asking them that. I really think she is aware of every detail.

JMO... they dismissed this woman's comments because they weren't valuable for some reason. (i.e. They knew SOMEthing that this woman's information did not jive with.)

I really can't wait for CPD to come back on this one...

Yes, will be interesting to see how (if at all) they respond. If they provide any information that discounts the woman's story, it may help give K&B a preview of what LE has. If they don't, then it seems the woman's story should stand as credible going into the custody hearing.

Regardless, it would seem suboptimal for CPD that this woman ended up feeling ignored.

 

[jmflu]

Yes, will be interesting to see how (if at all) they respond. If they provide any information that discounts the woman's story, it may help give K&B a preview of what LE has. If they don't, then it seems the woman's story should stand as credible going into the custody hearing.

Regardless, it would seem suboptimal for CPD that this woman ended up feeling ignored.

"Suboptimal." I like that.

 

[raisincharlie]

I doubt she's asking them that. I really think she is aware of every detail.

JMO... they dismissed this woman's comments because they weren't valuable for some reason. (i.e. They knew SOMEthing that this woman's information did not jive with.)

I really can't wait for CPD to come back on this one...

What would CPD have to say about it? The woman acknowledges that on the 13th LE took her statement. Is LE obligated to go any further with her if they have evidence which is not consistent with her statement ? I don't understand why anyone would think LE should follow up with her if evidence indicates that she was mistaken based on her description.

 

[jumpstreet]

As for CPD not getting back to the woman...this may fall under the 'absolutely no comment' restriction. Info comes in (perhaps seems to fall into a black hole), but the police are not going to share any details with anyone outside of the investigation, even with a witness who came forward.

In hindsight, I suspect they may wish they had come up with a way to honor the 'absolutely no comment' restriction, and at the same time, ensure that she didn't conclude she was being completely ignored.

Of course I don't think it was intentional on the part of CPD (for her to feel ignored), but I wouldn't be surprised if, in hindsight, they would opt to handle things somewhat differently w.r.t. this eyewitness.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Well, crap. That means they will be putting up with a lot of bashing perhaps for no reason.

I think they can handle criticism, as it must be part of the job on a daily basis. But seriously, why would they give away any info or confirm or deny any theory? They would listen to the info and see if it's something they need to followup. Lots of kooky calls come in when there's a high profile crime (not saying this witness is kooky at all), just that the police are privy to evidence neither we nor this witness has. Hopefully she wasn't merely overlooked by CPD and was purposely ignored...okay that didn't come out right, but you know what I mean...

 

[jmflu]

What would CPD have to say about it? The woman acknowledges that on the 13th LE took her statement. Is LE obligated to go any further with her if they have evidence which is not consistent with her statement ? I don't understand why anyone would think LE should follow up with her if evidence indicates that she was mistaken based on her description.

Bolding is mine.

I was just hoping they would say exactly that to squash all the bashers.

 

[SleuthyGal]

In hindsight, I suspect they may wish they had come up with a way to honor the 'absolutely no comment' restriction, and at the same time, ensure that she didn't conclude she was being completely ignored.

I'd recommend one of those nice non-committal letters that HR depts send out to applicants to let them know their 'info was received and if interested you'll hear from us.' :smile:

 

[ncsu95]

You are ruling out that none of Nancy's clothes she had on that morning were found at the scene where her body was. You are also ruling out that possibly those clothes may have consisted of a dark shirt or a red shirt. So because someone says they saw her LE should stop looking for Nancy and talk to this person in detail because she can describe a jogger but can't tell where she went? The first priority was to find Nancy and as I recall the area where this woman says she saw her was searched rather extensively to include water searches on the lake. What else should they have done and would this report show them where Nancy was at that time ?

No I'm not. I don't think she was killed where she was found. I'm not ruling out anything...I'm just not dismissing this womans statement because it doesn't fit the BC is guilty theory.