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

[jmflu]

Of course it is baloney, because it doesn't directly point to BC as the murderer. The problem with you saying baloney is that she reported this to police BEFORE NC was found. She called them on July 13th. I think that is very credible. If this was a witness that showed up months later saying, oh yeah, I saw her....that would be different. But she is 100% sure of who she saw and when she saw her, and reported it to police the next day. How is that baloney?

Now try to remember someone that you talked to yesterday. Can you remember exactly what they were wearing? I talked to several people yesterday and know I talked to them...but couldn't tell you exactly what they were wearing. There was no reason for her to remember this at the time. She remembers the face because she made eye contact and exchanged pleasantries with the jogger...and then recognized her from the flyer later that day. I find that credible.

I agree. I can't remember crap!

 

[SleuthyGal]

I do believe the affiant saw someone that morning. And I believe she believes it was Nancy and is providing the info she saw. However, I don't believe it actually was Nancy. Further, this affiant is not privy to any other evidence that the CPD may have in the case that hasn't been released. And beyond that, if this witness came forward after the autopsy report was released which described the top NC was found wearing then that could affect her description.

 

[raisincharlie]

There was a description. Shorts and a light colored top. I think the affi was very thorough. It would make sense. She made eye contact and said hello to a person. She didn't know that person would soon be murdered. She remembered the face as soon as she saw a flier, but didn't remember exactly what she was wearing (at least details about the shorts and light colored top). That would make sense.

Try again: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/23/3257376/Nancy_Cooper_flier.pdf

So one can remember the shirt was light but not if the shorts were or not, even though the person was running right towards her. I don't think so.

 

[gritguy]

If the woman she saw was NC, I'd say that comes pretty darn close to proving BC didn't kill NC.

It goes in that direction. As to the case exposed to the public, until more is known, you can say the DA is correct in not taking this matter forward against Brad Cooper. For one, if this woman is truthful just in having reported this to LE and not having been interviewed by them, it's clear the case has not been fully researched.

For all we know now, somebody who worked construction over in that new neighborhood abjucted her in a van, killed her, and then dumped her in a place he knew wouldn't be occupied.

Now, to me, it looked certain from a public view that BC was the killer. However, this new evidence shows there is much about this case that is yet unknown.

Regardless of how busy the CPD is, they should never had let a direct lead like this linger to the point the woman turned to the defense team just to get her story out. It'd be nice from a confidence in LE standpoint to find out she's not being truthful, b/c as is the lack of diligent follow-up is almost as damning as the statement that she saw NC when it comes to confidence in the handling of the matter.

One thing for certain, this bombshell replace Brad's depo mannerisms as the topic of interest in the case.

 

[jmflu]

It is not worth it for me to respond to you, so I will cease and desist.

You just responded.

 

[ncsu95]

Bolding is mine.

Sure, and I understand that could have happened.

I wouldn't state that you give no credibility to someone's witnesses that often comes to this board and tries to help, though. That's a direct attack and can be hurtful.

I'm not attacking MT3K. I'm saying that everyone jumped on the HT at 4:20 am statement and believed it as fact. I believe that it did not happen, and everything made public to date shows that it didn't happen. That makes it not credible. I believe the other person is correct that he went to LTF. BC agrees to this. I'm not convinced he asked anyone to swipe the card...especially not on a 3rd person account.

 

[cygnusx1]

I believe that there is something that CPD knows that makes this witness either not credible or mistaken.

I have to believe that they followed up on any credible lead.

While she's adamant that she saw HER - she's vague on anything other than the long face. It's also possible that the CPD know who the jogger she saw really IS - and it's not NC. I would think that 7AM ish around Lochmere would be a busy jogging time and there is a strong possibilty that another jogger - who went to the CPD - said that she was jogging, saw the lady with the dogs - said hi to her and went along her route - wearing her light colored top......

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.

 

[jmflu]

I'm not attacking MT3K. I'm saying that everyone jumped on the HT at 4:20 am statement and believed it as fact. I believe that it did not happen, and everything made public to date shows that it didn't happen. That makes it not credible. I believe the other person is correct that he went to LTF. BC agrees to this. I'm not convinced he asked anyone to swipe the card...especially not on a 3rd person account.

Ok, and you may be exactly right, and I understand your point. I just think the last line in your paragraph wasn't needed because what you stated was more doubting what the people said rather than directly pointing to Mom as an unreliable source.

 

[rwesafe]

Ok, so how in the world can you guys explain everything else?

Why would anyone remove her shoes and socks?

Because perhaps they had evidence on them and the perp took them to be safe? Maybe she had been in someone elses car, house, etc., Maybe it was a gang related message....Some serial killers take items off their victims as little trophies....there are any number of reasons that a killer might do that.

 

[ncsu95]

I believe that there is something that CPD knows that makes this witness either not credible or mistaken.

I have to believe that they followed up on any credible lead.

While she's adamant that she saw HER - she's vague on anything other than the long face. It's also possible that the CPD know who the jogger she saw really IS - and it's not NC. I would think that 7AM ish around Lochmere would be a busy jogging time and there is a strong possibilty that another jogger - who went to the CPD - said that she was jogging, saw the lady with the dogs - said hi to her and went along her route - wearing her light colored top......

I would hope so to. But police in general can zero in on someone and ignore things that point elsewhere. Not saying CPD did this, but it happens frequently.

 

[jmflu]

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

There has been some discussion that they needed to do this in order not to be accused of not seeking out other possible suspects and just focusing on BC.

 

[ncsu95]

Certainly not if their story didn't add up in one way or another... now, say this woman is sympathetic towards Brad, might she have stated things a little stronger in her affidavit or a little differently than she did to LE?

I'm not trying to discredit her, just trying to make sense of it all...

If she told police this on the 13th before BC became a suspect, that would probably mean she wasn't sympathetic towards Brand, and was simply saying I saw this woman. Remember, NC was still a missing person at this time.

 

[RKAB]

They never interviewed her. Her saying to cops in the neighborhood that she reported seeing NC but hasn't received a response back is not an interview.

They didn't sit down and have a tape-recorded interview session, no. But in her speaking to the officer at the scene, I have no doubt that the officer there and any further that she spoke to would be making notes, including the description she was providing, the details and her name and phone number. They're not going to blow off a potential witness. What I am saying is that in the information that they recorded (wrote down) while she was giving her informal statement (talking to them), police may have been able to rule out her sighting because of knowledge they had already gained or because of the description she had given not matching. There wouldn't have been an officer onsite that would have said "ya, I don't have time for this now, call us later".

They knew this was a murder investigation. They're not going to drop the ball and not interview a potential witness if they believed that witness to have credible information.

 

[jmflu]

Because perhaps they had evidence on them and the perp took them to be safe? Maybe she had been in someone elses car, house, etc., Maybe it was a gang related message....Some serial killers take items off their victims as little trophies....there are any number of reasons that a killer might do that.

I'm glad you responded anyway. I really do think we can discuss this with different points of view calmly and without attack.

 

[jmflu]

If she told police this on the 13th before BC became a suspect, that would probably mean she wasn't sympathetic towards Brand, and was simply saying I saw this woman. Remember, NC was still a missing person at this time.

Correct.

 

[raisincharlie]

Of course it is baloney, because it doesn't directly point to BC as the murderer. The problem with you saying baloney is that she reported this to police BEFORE NC was found. She called them on July 13th. I think that is very credible. If this was a witness that showed up months later saying, oh yeah, I saw her....that would be different. But she is 100% sure of who she saw and when she saw her, and reported it to police the next day. How is that baloney?

Now try to remember someone that you talked to yesterday. Can you remember exactly what they were wearing? I talked to several people yesterday and know I talked to them...but couldn't tell you exactly what they were wearing. There was no reason for her to remember this at the time. She remembers the face because she made eye contact and exchanged pleasantries with the jogger...and then recognized her from the flyer later that day. I find that credible.

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 ?

 

[jmflu]

oops!!

 

[ncsu95]

I do believe the affiant saw someone that morning. And I believe she believes it was Nancy and is providing the info she saw. However, I don't believe it actually was Nancy. Further, this affiant is not privy to any other evidence that the CPD may have in the case that hasn't been released. And beyond that, if this witness came forward after the autopsy report was released which described the top NC was found wearing then that could affect her description.

That's fair.

 

[gritguy]

You are ruling out that none of Nancy's clothes she had on that morning were not 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 ?

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.

 

[SleuthyGal]

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