Autopsy

[momto3kids]

I need to head to bed, but with any photo's we happen to see or find, if we can try to see if she jogs in her wedding set. If she does and they were not noted by the ME as being on her when her body was found, then I surmise she didn't leave home to jog. This is just my opinion.

Also if any other photo's are found that say 'the saddest party ever', if we can tell if she wore her set that last night. I still think those photo's were of the 11th. I bet she had them on.

Nite all.

 

[cygnusx1]

Eye, how the heck is "Lochmere trail dirt" going to be singled out as being that? Lochmere is HUGE. There is no special Lochmere trail dirt. I feel as if you are playing with us. Besides that, you said you would not comment further after your first post.

Is there a difference in "Lochmere trail dirt" and say, Bond Park trail dirt? Do feel free to specify these differences in depth.

There have been many cases profiled on Forensic Files (my wife's favorite show) where a forensic geologist compared the makeup of the dirt at various locations to determine where dirt on the victim, a vehicle, or other object had come from. There are likely differences in the composition of the trail surface in different regions of the subdivision, let alone from that at Bond Park, and given samples from those regions, a forensic geologist could determine from which region a specimen likely came from.

Running on gravel is asking for a sprained ankle or a fall. What joggers do you know who love to run on gravelly trails? Do they wear cleats? Since you are so convinced and seem to have this "trail dirt", knee thing and other situations under close scrutiny, maybe you should not ask US to compare these things. Maybe in the interest of Nancy Cooper's death you should notify the authorities yourself.

My family and I took a bike ride on the American Tobacco Trail in Apex this past weekend. The surface is hard-packed, very fine gravel and/or dirt. There were many cyclists, walkers, horse-back riders, and yes, runners on that trail.

I have seen MANY runners on the unpaved trails in Bond Park on many occasions. AFAIK, ALL of the trails in Bond Park are unpaved. Runners use the trails in Umstead Park as well. The trail at the Reedy Creek Rd entrance (near Lake Crabtree) is a similar surface to that on the American Tobacco trail. I have seen runners on the mountain bike trails at Lake Crabtree Park. Talk about a rut-laden trail.

I find EB's analysis interesting, but the fact that she was found face-down in the silt pond makes it unlikely. Presumably any dirt from the attack in that scenario would have been washed away in the pond.

 

[ncnative]

I know the American Tobacco Trail. Yes, there are many kinds of gravel that exist. Pea gravel, pretty smooth landscaping gravel of different sizes, drainage gravel that is granite, very sharp and will throw you to your knees if you slip on it.

I would be down and out on gravel. I need all the security I can get with my new metal knee replacement!

I used to run on the track team in school, ages ago. I never ran on gravel though. I also used to be in ballet. I compare running on gravel with trying to dance on pointe on a stage dusted with graphite powder. Instant death for me.


It sounds like Eye knows somewhere that could be checked. Maybe Eye is a psychic, but won't tell. I wish we had a psychic on the board (a genuine one).

Anyway, I think Nancy was not murdered on any jogging trail. I think she was not murdered by a woman. And, Eye said she was taken from behind. I don't remember reading that in the reports.

I didn't go to bed. Can't sleep.

 

[jumpstreet]

I wish we had a psychic on the board (a genuine one).

I agree that the last thing this board probably needs is a make-believe psychic. If we're going to get one, let's at least get a real one. Disclaimer: I'm no psychic... or at least I don't play one on TV...

 

[piedmont]

Eye, the things that go against your theory that immediately come to mind:
1. women less likely to murder than men (?)
2. a woman would not choose strangulation as a method
3. are there any women murderously mad at NC?
4. the woman would have to get the body into a car and back out of a car

Another point-if NC was involved with another man or woman, wouldn't her friends know about it? They would want justice for NC and tell about that person as a possibility. Ofcourse that person would have to have motive! What would their motive be??

 

[maconrich]

It sounds like Eye knows somewhere that could be checked. Maybe Eye is a psychic, but won't tell. I wish we had a psychic on the board (a genuine one).

Anyway, I think Nancy was not murdered on any jogging trail. I think she was not murdered by a woman. And, Eye said she was taken from behind. I don't remember reading that in the reports.

I didn't go to bed. Can't sleep.(respectfully snipped)

If he/she does know something I certainly hope it is checked... I would think, however, that a sample was taken of the soil where she was found to see if it matched that which was on her left leg

Regardless, I too have an extremely hard time thinking a woman killed Nancy -even if she was attacked from behind (which I think is likely even though the autopsy report doesn't provide that information). The fact that the cause of death was (most likely) strangulation, with no obvious signs of trauma, makes it even more unbelievable that a woman was responsible.

The report stated there was a faint linear mark on her neck, not a scratch. And as Mom pointed out 'A strip of soft fabric is likely to leave a relatively faint and undefined mark; a broad cloth, such as a scarf or towel, can leave one or more narrow marks.' It was BC who had the scratch, not Nancy.

It was also pointed out that she was clothed only in a black, gray and red 'halter top' that was pushed up above her breasts. It seems highly unlikely that a woman attacker would have left her like this. Actually, it's unlikely anyone would have left her like this, making BC's statement that she went out for a run questionable at best.

On the million in one chance that it was a woman, she would have had to have been someone not known by friends and who didn't participate in any of the searches. Surely this woman would have had noticeable bruises, scratches, etc because Nancy would have been in a better position to fight back. Again this was a very close physical attack (as in not a gun, etc), and the element of surprise only goes so far before the survival instinct kicks in.

Changing topics, that missing earring just bothers the heck out of me :waitasec:

 

[piedmont]

Yes, the earring-can we look at pictures of her running to see if she always had these in? Seems like you wouldn't want to risk losing valuable jewelry running, but maybe if they were very secure in her ears, she might just keep them in all the time? Would you wear such nice earrings as an everyday thing-while painting, running, taking care of kids??

 

[Star12]

Yes, the earring-can we look at pictures of her running to see if she always had these in? Seems like you wouldn't want to risk losing valuable jewelry running, but maybe if they were very secure in her ears, she might just keep them in all the time? Would you wear such nice earrings as an everyday thing-while painting, running, taking care of kids??

For me, the answer to that is YES. The only time I take out my diamond posts is to clean them.

And, BTW, Nancy's posts were, I am sure, diamonds. The ME is not a jewelry expert and since defining the properties of the stone would not fall under his duties, would designate as glass. Even jewelers, when taking in jewelry for repair, mark customers' diamonds as 'white stones', sapphires as 'blue stones', etc.

 

[eye_believe]

Eye, the things that go against your theory that immediately come to mind:
1. women less likely to murder than men (?)
2. a woman would not choose strangulation as a method
3. are there any women murderously mad at NC?
4. the woman would have to get the body into a car and back out of a car

Another point-if NC was involved with another man or woman, wouldn't her friends know about it? They would want justice for NC and tell about that person as a possibility. Ofcourse that person would have to have motive! What would their motive be??

==== this is a topic about the autopsy (not other woman's likelyhoods or motives).
Why can't people focus on the autopsy! I am not claiming to be fortune teller.

The insect activity on the neck and left caked knee (and no where else on the limbs mentioned?) implies to me that there was skin damage (cuts there). I think that is consistent with being pushed forward to the ground, and lots of weight bearing down on a supportive knee while alive/struggling.

Knee.
Which knee was was up or down when she was found?
If the dirty knee was "up" when she was found I think it fits the scenario.
If the dirt was from elsewhere, then it even fits the Lochmere Trail scenario more.

Neck.
I think the relatively early insect activity on the small neck spot is likely from a cut or tear in the skin. Probably a predominant right hand index finger during choking from behind.

Woman.
I think an enraged "man" would have done more damage to the overall neck tissue. I think a wrapped item might have caused more marks elsewhere on the neck too. If the cut could be caused by a fingernail, then the person might have had relatively long nails. That's it! This is a thread about the autopsy.
I think these are reasonable OBSERVATIONS from the A U T O P S Y FACTS. I am not a fortune teller and never said I was.

 

[piedmont]

==== this is a topic about the autopsy (not other woman's likelyhoods or motives).
Why can't people focus on the autopsy! I am not claiming to be fortune teller.

The insect activity on the neck and left caked knee (and no where else on the limbs mentioned?) implies to me that there was skin damage (cuts there). I think that is consistent with being pushed forward to the ground, and lots of weight bearing down on a supportive knee while alive/struggling.

Knee.
Which knee was was up or down when she was found?
If the dirty knee was "up" when she was found I think it fits the scenario.
If the dirt was from elsewhere, then it even fits the Lochmere Trail scenario more.

Neck.
I think the relatively early insect activity on the small neck spot is likely from a cut or tear in the skin. Probably a predominant right hand index finger during choking from behind.

Woman.
I think an enraged "man" would have done more damage to the overall neck tissue. I think a wrapped item might have caused more marks elsewhere on the neck too. If the cut could be caused by a fingernail, then the person might have had relatively long nails. That's it! This is a thread about the autopsy.
I think these are reasonable OBSERVATIONS from the A U T O P S Y FACTS. I am not a fortune teller and never said I was.

Eye-You're right. Focusing only on the autopsy facts, I can totally see your points. Going down on a knee would break the skin and a fingernail on the neck would break the skin. AND an enraged man would likely leave more marks on the neck. What do you think, though, about the hyoid bone being broken? I think I read it takes alot to break that-sometimes people are strangled without it being broken.

 

[momto3kids]

==== this is a topic about the autopsy (not other woman's likelyhoods or motives).
Why can't people focus on the autopsy! I am not claiming to be fortune teller.

The insect activity on the neck and left caked knee (and no where else on the limbs mentioned?) implies to me that there was skin damage (cuts there). I think that is consistent with being pushed forward to the ground, and lots of weight bearing down on a supportive knee while alive/struggling.

Knee.
Which knee was was up or down when she was found?
If the dirty knee was "up" when she was found I think it fits the scenario.
If the dirt was from elsewhere, then it even fits the Lochmere Trail scenario more.

Neck.
I think the relatively early insect activity on the small neck spot is likely from a cut or tear in the skin. Probably a predominant right hand index finger during choking from behind.

Woman.
I think an enraged "man" would have done more damage to the overall neck tissue. I think a wrapped item might have caused more marks elsewhere on the neck too. If the cut could be caused by a fingernail, then the person might have had relatively long nails. That's it! This is a thread about the autopsy.
I think these are reasonable OBSERVATIONS from the A U T O P S Y FACTS. I am not a fortune teller and never said I was.

Welcome Eye_Believe!
Your observations of the Autopsy report are intriguing.

I have to ask, if NC was pushed, or in a struggle going to the ground, or strangled and fell to the ground, why were there be no scratches noted by the ME? I would imagine there would be scratches on her knee, leg, elbows, or somewhere. Nothing is noted of any limb having a single scratch. Dirt, gravel or pavement would leave some sign on NC body IMO.

 

[RaleighNC]

My issue with the female assailant is this:

Nancy was tall. Taller than most women. A woman (most likely shorter than Nancy) getting her hands up and around her neck and then having the strength to cut off her airway in that position is improbable. (try it)

Nancy was fit / strong. I would venture to say stronger that a large percentile of other women. Once she felt hands around neck - she would have fought back.

Nancy was not "light". She was fit with muscle. She was also tall. Lifting and transporting this dead weight would be VERY difficult for anyone for the distance that is surmised here (the "other" trails to a vehicle and out of the vehicle at the dump site.) It would also be even more difficult the taller and more "spread out" the weight is. I would rate this possibility HIGHLY improbable.

And - if she went running at 7 AM - it was light and all the activity took a while. SOMEONE would have seen a person loading a body into a car.

Interesting scenario - but - I have to say - HIGHLY unlikely.

As for the enraged man doing more damage - I believe that it was stated that oftentimes when someone is strangled using a band of cloth or fabric, they end up with a small park on the throat. I aslo don't believe that it was labeled as a cut, but a red mark.

I don't think this was a bare handed maneuver - I believe it was even pressure due to something around her neck. All it takes is cutting off air....

 

[jmflu]

Eye... you seem SO defensive and have since you posted your very first time... WHY?? Do you see most people with dissenting opinions getting crucified?! No. Chill out a little... breathe... You can state all this safely without freaking out, I promise!

 

[raisincharlie]

==== this is a topic about the autopsy (not other woman's likelyhoods or motives).
Why can't people focus on the autopsy! I am not claiming to be fortune teller.

The insect activity on the neck and left caked knee (and no where else on the limbs mentioned?) implies to me that there was skin damage (cuts there). I think that is consistent with being pushed forward to the ground, and lots of weight bearing down on a supportive knee while alive/struggling.

Knee.
Which knee was was up or down when she was found?
If the dirty knee was "up" when she was found I think it fits the scenario.
If the dirt was from elsewhere, then it even fits the Lochmere Trail scenario more.

Neck.
I think the relatively early insect activity on the small neck spot is likely from a cut or tear in the skin. Probably a predominant right hand index finger during choking from behind.

Woman.
I think an enraged "man" would have done more damage to the overall neck tissue. I think a wrapped item might have caused more marks elsewhere on the neck too. If the cut could be caused by a fingernail, then the person might have had relatively long nails. That's it! This is a thread about the autopsy.
I think these are reasonable OBSERVATIONS from the A U T O P S Y FACTS. I am not a fortune teller and never said I was.

So from your observations you can totally rule out that possible damages such as abrasions did not occur when Nancy's body was thrown down the embankment at the disposal site ?

You can assume from the autopsy there were no rocks or other debris at the disposal location that could have caused such injury to her face and knee ?

The autopsy facts of insect infestation on the knee and face were due to injuries sustained during a struggle in your view, even though there is no mention of injury to the knee and face in the autopsy report ?

The cut on the neck in your view had to come from a right handed person with long nails - that is an autopsy fact ? Is it possible Nancy could have injured herself when trying to grab whatever was around her neck, choking her ?

 

[SleuthyGal]

The problem with (our view of) the autopsy report is that we do not have all the ME notes, observations, photographs, the full set of documents that comprise an entire autopsy file. We are (only) seeing the public part of the autopsy, not the entire report and notes, and we are working with a subset of the total information, the executive summary, if you will, which may make a difference in developing realistic theories. The case investigators and CCBI do have (or have access to) the entire/full autopsy, plus they witnessed the autopsy itself, had conversations with the ME, and of course have ongoing access to the ME if questions arise.

 

[eye_believe]

sometimes it breaks? sometimes it doesn/t?

Like any other bone break, it probably depends on the victims bone density and shape as well as the location & direction of force application!
Grip high on the neck, or low on the neck? Don't know.

I don't think it changes anything unless maybe it helps rule in a suspect if that person knew exactly what the hyoid is and now to break it and targeted it for some reason? (maybe if a break impedes something like voice or breath?) It doesn't matter to the scenario.

I really am done here.
Don't confuse my future silence with any type of victory by those who discount the scientific nature of the topic thread (A U T O P S Y) and choose to speculate about the killer's motives and other non-autopsy distractions.

 

[SleuthyGal]

sometimes it breaks? sometimes it doesn/t?

Like any other bone break, it probably depends on the victims bone density and shape as well as the location & direction of force application!
Grip high on the neck, or low on the neck? Don't know.

I don't think it changes anything unless maybe it helps rule in a suspect if that person knew exactly what the hyoid is and now to break it and targeted it for some reason? (maybe if a break impedes something like voice or breath?) It doesn't matter to the scenario.

I really am done here.
Don't confuse my future silence with any type of victory by those who discount the scientific nature of the topic thread (A U T O P S Y) and choose to speculate about the killer's motives and other non-autopsy distractions.

eye_believe,

I wish you'd stay and join the discussions and continue to share your thoughts. We are all trying to figure out the meaning of these reports. It is only through discussions that we can attempt do this. I think everyone is interested in learning and trying to figure out what happened.

I hope you'll reconsider and stay. It's a nice group full of intelligent people with diverse backgrounds and experiences, and even though we do sometimes get into debates, I feel this forum is the most thorough/thoughtful place to discuss this case.

 

[jmflu]

sometimes it breaks? sometimes it doesn/t?

Like any other bone break, it probably depends on the victims bone density and shape as well as the location & direction of force application!
Grip high on the neck, or low on the neck? Don't know.

I don't think it changes anything unless maybe it helps rule in a suspect if that person knew exactly what the hyoid is and now to break it and targeted it for some reason? (maybe if a break impedes something like voice or breath?) It doesn't matter to the scenario.

I really am done here.
Don't confuse my future silence with any type of victory by those who discount the scientific nature of the topic thread (A U T O P S Y) and choose to speculate about the killer's motives and other non-autopsy distractions.

Eye, you did not yourself just state autopsy facts. You speculated about what happened. If you expected no one to question your logic and reasoning, think about this. The facts about what the autopsy can only be stated once. You did that. So, is there no more to discuss here? You're saying people can't comment about what the autopsy leads them to believe happened?

Didn't you do that, yourself?

 

[momto3kids]

Now I wonder since Eye_Believe's first post if they have seen the actual autopsy report that is in Chapel Hill. :waitasec:
Remember they said I40 to Chapel Hill.

Dang this leads to so many more questions.
Eye_Believe your input is valuable for us to look at other angles of this case. Don't feel you need to leave. You have opened the door to an angle we have not visited yet.

 

[maconrich]

The insect activity on the neck and left caked knee (and no where else on the limbs mentioned?) implies to me that there was skin damage (cuts there). I think that is consistent with being pushed forward to the ground, and lots of weight bearing down on a supportive knee while alive/struggling.

I think an enraged "man" would have done more damage to the overall neck tissue. I think a wrapped item might have caused more marks elsewhere on the neck too. If the cut could be caused by a fingernail, then the person might have had relatively long nails. (respectfully snipped)

ok sticking to the autopsy report, after looking back over it I see what you're saying about the insects near the mark on her neck and her left knee. The ME is very clear that 'the insect scavenging is deeper into the tissues in this area' (of the knee). So it does seem reasonable that these two areas were likely injured and thus allowed for earlier and more insect activity.

Under 'Injuries' it's pointed out (three times) that there was no definite evidence of hemorrhage. (something I hadn't remembered.) When you say that the autopsy indicates someone of lesser strength (a woman) strangled her because a man would have inflicted more damage - are you saying there would/should have been evidence of hemorrhage? That there should have been major tissue damage? Or both / neither? And you believe it was literally a hands on strangling instead of the person using a cloth or something else??