Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #24

[SleuthyGal]

I'm with RD on this one.

From the side of the road it would take quite a few steps to get to the "pond", more steps than someone would want to take to dump a body. A dead body is heavvvvy.

I don't think she was found in the "wet" part.

Ditto this too. If he had bothered to walk as far as the actual pond itself, then I see no reason he wouldn't have just dumped her into the heavy bush coverage, which would hide a body very well.

 

[jumpstreet]

However, I think it would be reasonable to assume that everything should be tested within 6 months and possibly within 3 months, depending.

Thanks SG, that's good to know!

 

[sunflowers]

RC, all the flower memorials were laid in one spot at the front of the pond area- one on top of the other over a period of time- as if the mourner knew exactly where her body laid. There was no water there. A little water was past the fence and then over the berm. I truly believe this particular spot was where her body was found based on the call from the dog walker. He had to walk to the edge to see it...as we did. It could resonably described as "the pond" because it was part of the indentation of land of the drainage area as a whole. Kind of like the seashore when the tide is out.

reddress, you mean that he had to walk to the edge of the pavement in order to see her body? that's what i've heard---that he stayed on the pavement & made the call from the street, and didn't go down to where her body was.

 

[reddress58]

Yes they did say..2001 BMW is where it was collected.
By her feet? How did he get her down the steps into the garage, let her head hit each step as he went down them? I don't agree with that at all.

Me neither. I think he carried her. She was light, and I did not note that a north face jacket was included among confiscated items in the SW.

 

[momto3kids]

trace taping is picking up 'trace evidence' like fibers, hair, stuff like that with pieces of tape for later examination in the crime lab.

Thanks....I had no idea.

 

[jumpstreet]

Has todays quote from Cary Chief been discussed any: “Everyone must remember that investigations are as much about ruling things out as ruling things in and that it’s the evidence that comes from a search warrant – not the warrant itself – that makes a difference in a case,”

It seems she is kinda trying to "take the edge off" of the information in the warrants, basically saying "don't read too much into this stuff, because at the time we were trying to eliminate suspects as much as we were to find them" [ completely my take ]

One fair point from the K&B statement is that these warrants do only give us a glimse of the "state of affairs" 6+ weeks in the past... surely LE knows a lot more now (even if we assume the forensics are not back).

The Chief's statement though is from today - maybe there is a hint there as to the current state of affairs for the investigation? It could be standard "police-speak"... or... it could very well be that in the past 6+ weeks, the investigation has taken a completely different turn and focus point?

Other thoughts?

 

[reddress58]

reddress, you mean that he had to walk to the edge of the pavement in order to see her body? that's what i've heard---that he stayed on the pavement & made the call from the street, and didn't go down to where her body was.

I took it as he had to walk toward the retention area to see the body. Not necessarily to the edge of the pavement. We retraced his steps while onsite.

 

[jilly]

Does anyone think that it was odd that Dr John Butts, the Chief Medical Officer for the State of NC made the identification of Nancy's body?

Doesn't the Pathologist Clarke or his staff cover this area? I just thought it was kind of strange.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I took it as he had to walk toward the retention area to see the body. Not necessarily to the edge of the pavement. We retraced his steps while onsite.

He was also taller than us (well, certainly ME), so that would affect how close he had to get in order to see over that slope down. Taller = could see it from slightly further away.

 

[momto3kids]

Me neither. I think he carried her. She was light, and I did not note that a north face jacket was included among confiscated items in the SW.

I didn't think about that! That is what he wore on the 14th during his search. LE had already noted his neck with possible marks. I guess they would have taken his long sleeve shirts also if they took the jacket.

The one BC wore to HT was not named by brand to me, just jacket being worn and cap.

 

[raisincharlie]

Does anyone think that it was odd that Dr John Butts, the Chief Medical Officer for the State of NC made the identification of Nancy's body?

Doesn't the Pathologist Clarke or his staff cover this area? I just thought it was kind of strange.

Maybe Clarke is no longer there - we know about his screw ups.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Does anyone think that it was odd that Dr John Butts, the Chief Medical Officer for the State of NC made the identification of Nancy's body?

Doesn't the Pathologist Clarke or his staff cover this area? I just thought it was kind of strange.

Nope I think they are all 'working' pathologists. The volume and budget probably dictate that he do his share of cases, though probably fewer than the others since he has administrative functions in addition.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I didn't think about that! That is what he wore on the 14th during his search. LE had already noted his neck with possible marks. I guess they would have taken his long sleeve shirts also if they took the jacket.

The one BC wore to HT was not named by brand to me, just jacket being worn and cap.

I also wonder if they determined which shirt he was wearing the night/morning Nancy left those scratches on his neck. It's possible there was some light bleeding from his neck, depending on how deep the scratches were, perhaps just enough to leave tiny spots on whatever shirt he had on THAT evening.

 

[raisincharlie]

I also wonder if they determined which shirt he was wearing the night/morning Nancy left those scratches on his neck. It's possible there was some light bleeding from his neck, depending on how deep the scratches were, perhaps just enough to leave tiny spots on whatever shirt he had on THAT evening.

A Nike Dryfit, white colored XL ?

 

[EntreNous]

Yeah, I'm on this page too... (the not-ready-to-convict part for sure. Though, I suppose based on current knowns, Theory A (BC did it) has to remain a front-runner)

It would be nice to know the maximum reasonable timetable for the forensics. It seems to me (but what do I know ), that if the forensics ARE back, and there's been no arrest, then LE very well could have very little of substance... and this case could remain unsolved for a fairly protracted period.

OTOH, if the forensics are NOT back yet, then it could very well be that an arrest could come 'any day now' (post GJ, etc).

Hence my (earlier posted) question on "after how much time has passed, it is reasonable to conclude the initial forensics are likely complete?" (it's been posted that it takes months, and that 60 days isn't uncommon... how much time is considered uncommonly long? (6 months? 1 year? 2 years? less? more?)).

I'd think they'd be able to ID the hair pretty quickly if it's Nancy's. They can also tell if it came from her while she was alive or it came from her corpse, (this has been discussed in the Caylee Anthony case recently). Certainly Nancy's hair would be found all over the house and cars. The defense could argue that a blanket or clothing could have been in the trunk of the sedan and transferred Nancy's hair there. They could also say BC used a towel from the house to wash the car if the hair matches Nancy's. The real key with that is if the testing shows the hair is from a cadaver. If it does, I just don't see how BC could wiggle out of it.

If Nancy was still alive when he moved her to the car, i.e. dying but not yet dead, she could have vomited. I would hate to think she could have possibly still been alive when her killer put her face down in a drainage pond.

 

[momto3kids]

I took it as he had to walk toward the retention area to see the body. Not necessarily to the edge of the pavement. We retraced his steps while onsite.

RDD58....I am still wondering if like my 1st theory where I stated, she was not quite dead when he got her to the site, in horrible condition, but not dead, he dragged her to the other side of the white tarp, thought he finished her off, she was barely able to crawl, did a short distance, but ended up rolling over into the water.

 

[reddress58]

Is it possible she was both "in the pond", and yet outside the silt fence? Seems to me I recall the water level was higher prior to the discovery (recent rains, and perhaps was subsequently drained). Certainly it wouldn't take much for the water level to rise outside the silt fence at that time.

Regardless, I guess I don't follow on the significance of being in contact with the body at that time. Surely the perp (whoever the perp was) would be in contact with the body putting it in the trunk to begin with? What am I missing?

This could very well support both the "in the pond" and "out of the pond" reports. We saw the tubing in the aerial photos. Just how much of the retenion area did they drain?

ETA: Would also make sense that he didn't take her deeper into the pond area, which have been a better hiding place. If he thought she was immersed enough in water as it was.

 

[CARYISHOME]

don't know. Depends on how backed-up the crime lab is, how many samples they are testing, what is ahead of this case, if anything, if they sent any samples out to other labs and how quickly those labs can turn something around, which kind of DNA testing is being done (some take longer). All variables...there is no ONE time frame that can apply. However, I think it would be reasonable to assume that everything should be tested within 6 months and possibly within 3 months, depending.

I work for the State. They are well aware of what's at stake here. Problem is they are under staffed and under paid.

IMO

 

[CyberPro]

Just curious: based on the release of the warrants today, is anyone now on the page that they would return a verdict of "guilty" if they were sitting on a jury today... or does reasonable doubt still exist?

[ Previously, while most thought the probability seemed high that BC was the culprit (based on current knowns), very few (nearly none) were comfortable with the notion of a guilty verdict just yet. ]

Still true?

I have been willin to keep an open mind, with a strong lean to the belief that BC=Perp, but willing to be swayed if the correct evidence was presented. I strongly believe that there are extremely serious flaws in his story, which might become huge gulfs in plausability if some of the things that Mom have spoken of are even close to the truth.

That being said, I do not feel that we have enough evidence to convict YET. It would depend on some things that LE no doubt has, but we are not privy to just yet.

1. What, if anything, was found on the computer(s),Flash Drives, etc. - this is not an absolute requirement, and BC should have been saavy enough to leave no traces, but you never can tell.

2. Need a COD

3. Need results of the tests on hair mentioned in the SWs.

4. DNA Results on the possible fingernail

5. Analysis results on the Sheet Stain, plastic, childs garment, etc. removed from the residence.

In most cases, I consider DNA to be a slam dunk, do not pass go, type of evidence, but in this case, I believe that it has less weight. The only situation where I could consider it a really bad situation was if it turns out that DNA was in a location where BCs DNA should not exist, in light of the lack of relations that were in his affidavit. Otherwise, they were living in the same house, and DNA happens. The presence of bodily fluid traces in the car trunk could not be explained away quite so easily.

Circumstantially, I already think the case is pretty strong, but just because hair was obtained from a location does not prove that the hair was NCs, or even human. It takes the results of that to actually mean anything.

CyberPro

 

[momto3kids]

If Nancy was still alive when he moved her to the car, i.e. dying but not yet dead, she could have vomited. I would hate to think she could have possibly still been alive when her killer put her face down in a drainage pond.

You and I are thinking exactly the same! I just posted about the same thing you did.