Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #26

[Star12]

During our visit to the site, I noticed there was, at that time, a paucity of vegetation. Plus there had been a significant rainfall which may have tended to disturb any vegetation that had been pushed over.

Dead weight is difficult to control, as anyone with a toddler knows. Does it make any sense for the perp to have undressed Nancy at that site? I can think of no reason, but sometimes my imagination goes a bit flat. What makes more sense to me is that she was killed someplace else.

We have learned that BC is pretty much immune to the idea of habitat order - Nancy's disgust at the condition of the home when she returned from her trip, and Krista's tale of the condition of Brad's car trunk. Then LE comes in the home and notices cleaning products on the counter in the upstairs bathroom. My opinion is that BC would not be inclined to put them away after use.

We know, too, that at death the voluntary muscles are no longer controlled and the body releases fluids and feces - the ME says her bladder was empty. I believe the murder took place upstairs at the home, and BC found he had a mess to clean up. He didn't want 'stuff' all over him. I think she was dressed when she was killed, and that her clothing was removed after the fact. The bra could have been left on since it wasn't soiled, and was disturbed during the move to the site, or the perp started to remove it and just left it when it proved to difficult to manage and was not necessary. And then there was the oval carpet that LE removed, and the cleaning of the HW floors with vinegar.

And the early morning trip to HT for detergent, and BC spending all that time Saturday morning doing laundry and cleaning while he also was out searching for Nancy.

Unless there was clothing found at the site that we don't know about. ???

And could someone please confirm with LE if she was found IN the pond or NEAR the pond. LE and/or media seems to be back to saying IN. But since the ME says there was all this dirt on her body, and she was found laying face down, being IN the pond does not make sense. Also, it was said that she was in FRONT of the silt fence, not behind it, which is where the little pond actually is.

So, FWIW, that's what I am thinking now.

 

[momto3kids]

(You better be hiding behind something more protective than that couch)

OK, I'll stack 3 of them together and hide behind them...
:couch:
:couch:
:couch:

 

[momto3kids]

Oh RC...I promise I was only kidding. :blowkiss:

I'll go hang my new rods and curtains.

I did notice everyone signed off when I asked the question except for 3 people.

I'll go back to what I was doing before I took a break........

 

[raisincharlie]

Oh RC...I promise I was only kidding. :blowkiss:

I'll go hang my new rods and curtains.

I did notice everyone signed off when I asked the question except for 3 people.

I'll go back to what I was doing before I took a break........

I know :crazy: No problem, we can all use a good laugh. :blowkiss:

 

[jmflu]

I know :crazy: No problem, we can all use a good laugh. :blowkiss:

Damn, I was looking forward to getting the whole story at one time...

[hides behind reddress which seemed to work for Sleuthy]

 

[Daphne69]

Forget the phone for now. Why are the non-phone address books (that we're thinking LE already has in their possession) included in the second warrant?

RC, look away. :runaway: Don't want to cause you any more stress. :crazy:

Just for you, Jump. I looked around and it seems that one possibility is that the address books qualify as "containers." That is, they contain documents or information much like a briefcase. So, they could be included on the SW to make sure access to any handwritten notes is covered.

 

[SleuthyGal]

RC~
Since I have been getting my dining room together for guests that are coming I have totally missed the conversation today where you are explaining about the cell phone.......

WOULD YOU MIND STARTING AT THE BEGINING AND EXPLAIN IT TO ME???

:couch:

:crazy: :woohoo: :clap: :rolling:

You are playing with fire, is what you're doing!

ROFL

 

[SleuthyGal]

Think of all these SWs both old and new as legal CYAs...you know "Cover Your Azz." LE needs to make sure each and every item they have in their possession is 'covered' within the legal permission of search & seizure. If there's any doubt, get it written up and add it to a SW. You don't want ANY issues in court that you (LE) have in your possession anything that has not been expressly granted to you--and a SW signed by a judge gives you that permission so you can look at, get into, take info from various items. So for computer and other digital hardware items (like a cell phone, which is like a mini-computer in essence) you want to make sure you have permission to not only seize the physical item itself, if you need it, but also permission to look for and take the info from it's memory/storage, etc. Ditto address books and anything else. It's not just permission to obtain the item itself, but they also want permission to look at and gain access to/get info from the item.

Even if a suspect or witness hands LE something with their permission to look at it, LE is going to want to make sure they are allowed to use any info they obtain from it. Legal CYA.

It may seem redundant and unnecessary, but better to be fully covered (CYA'd) than to lose the ability to use any information you learn from any of those items later because a defense lawyer was able to successfully argue illegal search & seizure in a court of law later.

So if you think of it that way I think it may help. They want to make sure each and everything is listed and they have written 'permission' to access. A SW allows that to happen so the info obtained doesn't get tossed out of court later.

 

[reddress58]

Think of all these SWs both old and new as legal CYAs...you know "Cover Your Azz." LE needs to make sure each and every item they have in their possession is 'covered' within the legal permission of search & seizure. If there's any doubt, get it written up and add it to a SW. You don't want ANY issues in court that you (LE) have in your possession anything that has not been expressly granted to you--and a SW signed by a judge gives you that permission so you can look at, get into, take info from various items. So for computer and other digital hardware items (like a cell phone, which is like a mini-computer in essence) you want to make sure you have permission to not only seize the physical item itself, if you need it, but also permission to look for and take the info from it's memory/storage, etc. Ditto address books and anything else. It's not just permission to obtain the item itself, but they also want permission to look at and gain access to/get info from the item.

Even if a suspect or witness hands LE something with their permission to look at it, LE is going to want to make sure they are allowed to use any info they obtain from it. Legal CYA.

It may seem redundant and unnecessary, but better to be fully covered (CYA'd) than to lose the ability to use any information you learn from any of those items later because a defense lawyer was able to successfully argue illegal search & seizure in a court of law later.

So if you think of it that way I think it may help. They want to make sure each and everything is listed and they have written 'permission' to access. A SW allows that to happen so the info obtained doesn't get tossed out of court later.

Great explaination, SG. Thanks for summing it up for a lot of folks. This makes perfect sense.

 

[reddress58]

During our visit to the site, I noticed there was, at that time, a paucity of vegetation. Plus there had been a significant rainfall which may have tended to disturb any vegetation that had been pushed over.

Dead weight is difficult to control, as anyone with a toddler knows. Does it make any sense for the perp to have undressed Nancy at that site? I can think of no reason, but sometimes my imagination goes a bit flat. What makes more sense to me is that she was killed someplace else.

We have learned that BC is pretty much immune to the idea of habitat order - Nancy's disgust at the condition of the home when she returned from her trip, and Krista's tale of the condition of Brad's car trunk. Then LE comes in the home and notices cleaning products on the counter in the upstairs bathroom. My opinion is that BC would not be inclined to put them away after use.

We know, too, that at death the voluntary muscles are no longer controlled and the body releases fluids and feces - the ME says her bladder was empty. I believe the murder took place upstairs at the home, and BC found he had a mess to clean up. He didn't want 'stuff' all over him. I think she was dressed when she was killed, and that her clothing was removed after the fact. The bra could have been left on since it wasn't soiled, and was disturbed during the move to the site, or the perp started to remove it and just left it when it proved to difficult to manage and was not necessary. And then there was the oval carpet that LE removed, and the cleaning of the HW floors with vinegar.

And the early morning trip to HT for detergent, and BC spending all that time Saturday morning doing laundry and cleaning while he also was out searching for Nancy.

Unless there was clothing found at the site that we don't know about. ???

And could someone please confirm with LE if she was found IN the pond or NEAR the pond. LE and/or media seems to be back to saying IN. But since the ME says there was all this dirt on her body, and she was found laying face down, being IN the pond does not make sense. Also, it was said that she was in FRONT of the silt fence, not behind it, which is where the little pond actually is.

So, FWIW, that's what I am thinking now.

Star, I think this is the best explanation yet for the way she was dressed when found! I have been going over and over it in my mind trying to make sense of why someone would intentionally leave her like that, or how she could come to be dressed that way.

Of course, if your theory is correct, that means Nancy WAS dressed to run! Maybe she planned to get in an early one at say 5:45am (like she had planned the day before with Carey and missed because of Carey's cancellation) If Nancy missed her run altogether the day before, it would be likely she would make it up the following day; typical if one is in training for an upcoming event. You pretty much stick to a somewhat regimented schedule. It would be helpful to know if she ran at anytime the day before either by herself or with someone. But if she nixed it all together because Carey backed out, I can see her wanting to squeeze a run in before painting. JMO

 

[Star12]

Star, I think this is the best explanation yet for the way she was dressed when found! I have been going over and over it in my mind trying to make sense of why someone would intentionally leave her like that, or how she could come to be dressed that way.

Of course, if your theory is correct, that means Nancy WAS dressed to run! Maybe she planned to get in an early one at say 5:45am (like she had planned the day before with Carey and missed because of Carey's cancellation) If Nancy missed her run altogether the day before, it would be likely she would make it up the following day; typical if one is in training for an upcoming event. You pretty much stick to a somewhat regimented schedule. It would be helpful to know if she ran at anytime the day before either by herself or with someone. But if she nixed it all together because Carey backed out, I can see her wanting to squeeze a run in before painting. JMO

Running also is a great stress reliever. It was "hate mode" time. And if they had been fighting the entire day previously, and then if Katie was up in the middle of the night and the fighting had continued she may have felt that a run, even short, was necessary - both for relieving the stress, and just to get away. But then, BC changed Nancy's plans. Again. For good.

 

[ncnative]

I keep remembering that a party-goer/affiant, if I am correct, remarked that Nancy had not been feeling well that night of the BBQ. Hmmm.

Perhaps you would like to go over to the "Autopsy" thread, to be proper and all...:biglaugh:, and read my latest personal sleuthing ideas. Maybe Nancy was feeling sick due to a mild exposure to phosphine poisoning. I figured this could be a slight possibility due to the autopsy results mentioning the histopathological findings of the liver, as well as the pancreas. BUT, I think they meant that the pancreas was autolyzed mechanically for autopsy. Not sure if pancreas was autolyzed by the fact of death, mechanically by the ME so that they could analyze the findings, OR due to ...poisoning or exposure to poison. I remind you that I know she reportedly died of asphyxiation.

My looking into this is no more kooky than "owl feathers, the owl did it" in the Kathleen Petersen case, or "special dirt from Lochmere trails on Nancy's knee, and a woman killed her" as put forth by Eye_Believe. We all have our moments on the "who done-it" chart.

It would be nice to have the nitty gritty lab results on liver, etc.

 

[reddress58]

Running also is a great stress reliever. It was "hate mode" time. And if they had been fighting the entire day previously, and then if Katie was up in the middle of the night and the fighting had continued she may have felt that a run, even short, was necessary - both for relieving the stress, and just to get away. But then, BC changed Nancy's plans. Again. For good.

I can see that happening easily. As a runner, you come to depend on the lift it gives you to relieve stress. That is a very believable and likely scenerio as well.

 

[CARYISHOME]

During our visit to the site, I noticed there was, at that time, a paucity of vegetation. Plus there had been a significant rainfall which may have tended to disturb any vegetation that had been pushed over.

Dead weight is difficult to control, as anyone with a toddler knows. Does it make any sense for the perp to have undressed Nancy at that site? I can think of no reason, but sometimes my imagination goes a bit flat. What makes more sense to me is that she was killed someplace else.

We have learned that BC is pretty much immune to the idea of habitat order - Nancy's disgust at the condition of the home when she returned from her trip, and Krista's tale of the condition of Brad's car trunk. Then LE comes in the home and notices cleaning products on the counter in the upstairs bathroom. My opinion is that BC would not be inclined to put them away after use.

We know, too, that at death the voluntary muscles are no longer controlled and the body releases fluids and feces - the ME says her bladder was empty. I believe the murder took place upstairs at the home, and BC found he had a mess to clean up. He didn't want 'stuff' all over him. I think she was dressed when she was killed, and that her clothing was removed after the fact. The bra could have been left on since it wasn't soiled, and was disturbed during the move to the site, or the perp started to remove it and just left it when it proved to difficult to manage and was not necessary. And then there was the oval carpet that LE removed, and the cleaning of the HW floors with vinegar.

And the early morning trip to HT for detergent, and BC spending all that time Saturday morning doing laundry and cleaning while he also was out searching for Nancy.

Unless there was clothing found at the site that we don't know about. ???

And could someone please confirm with LE if she was found IN the pond or NEAR the pond. LE and/or media seems to be back to saying IN. But since the ME says there was all this dirt on her body, and she was found laying face down, being IN the pond does not make sense. Also, it was said that she was in FRONT of the silt fence, not behind it, which is where the little pond actually is.

So, FWIW, that's what I am thinking now.

This is excellent!

I was just thinking - sometimes, when I plan to go out walking early in the morning, I will sleep in the clothes I plan to wear. That is, I might sleep in my sports bra and a big shirt. Maybe NC did something similar?

Sorry if this has already been discussed - I have been out of touch lately.

 

[Lillypad]

Hi everyone! I am new at posting but I have been lurking for a long time. I hope I have read everythng from each of the threads, but it is hard to keep up with it all.
Let me just say that I am drawn to this case in many ways, as a mom, a Carolinian, and Canadian family ties. I was actually married around where she was from. I have worked as a profiler for many years so I often see a "different pattern""than what most may see, but that is my job. So I will ask some questions sometimes that appear totally off the wall. But I promise, I spend all day looking for patterns in things. I have been involved in personality profiling for corporations to build whole teams as well as eliminate members. Most recently, due to a child that keeps me very busy as he is a specail needs child, I skip tracee for private and gov programs. I leave no stone unturned!
I must say I have enjoyed what so many of you! I feel that this is a wonderful comunity and that I do see 2 very different groups, but both impassioned equally. I would hope that I would have such devoted friends as Nancys to come to my defence and seek justice for me as so many of you have taken up a daily vigal in a quest for justice for her. It has been my professional experience, that those closest to individuals, can have gut instinct opinions that prove to be most often right. It is similar to those of us who hae a testimony of the Gospel, We can not prove every fact it is just something we ave a testimony of. So I do not take argument to any thatr have such strom opinions thqat he is guility and hold fast to it. But I also admire those who equally hold to there opions that there is reasonable doubt and have to leave it open. I applaud you for not jumping to conclusions when it would be easy to convict.

I think this case is like the market, it gives us all anxiety, we keep hoping that the dawn will ring a closer to the bad and bring good news till the market drops again on us, but then the analist tell us durng the day to hold fast this will happen and it will e ok. We all dont want it to be our normal next door neigbor/freind, in our circle and loose hope that normalacy really did not exixt as we thought it did while we were breathing right there. It could be you or I next.

My unanswered questions/observations
If the relationship had been going on like this for a while the they were basically co-existing together, then they could fight and still go on. I dont see any mention of any other instance of any physical violence. If it was just a co-existance relationship, then they could be in hate mode. I dont see these
turning usually. Both usually have a boiling point and wont go past it because they still want something out of the relationship. Such as wanting the image of a family for him and she wanting the financial support.
But what do we know from any thing that she may have said to anyone that that was going to change soon. If she were to say not appease the sistuation when it got to a point because she was confident she had solid plans in the works then that could point to a factor to break the cycle. But that would have to come from confidential conversations she had with others close to her or with her family.
It is odd to me she came home so late if she planned to run that early.
5 hrs sleep max???
And supposably up earlier doing laundry, who lives on that much sleep???
I do believe she got up to go running. Here is my therory.
She got dressed. Sent him to the store so the milk would be on his dime. He came back told him he better due his laundry and he was out of deterugent, put in tick off mod, he wen t back out, she called to tell him to be quick about it or she woud not be able to finish in time for his tennis game.
Heres A B C
A he tells her he is at the corner she can leave, so she does, since the kds are asleep, he is drivfing in and he is not really
but he knows the route she will be takeing, he meets her on it surprises her and tells her to get in the car or some how kills her at a spot orther than where she ends up, it is quick.
Puts her back in the car and takes her to the final spot. He would undress her to make it look like another motive or maybe there is some sign of evidence on her clthes that has to be removed. Maybe she spotted the clothes wet the cloths. The shoes ans socks have to be removed because they would contain dirt or samples of the ground from the original area and that would be different, and his shoes would too.
The optopsy shes no sign of struggle, sothing in the nails. Nothing so shwo she was in a lying down position and scraped herself or her body in a struggle. Why? why so clean???
What would have made her give in so easily?
This is what haunts me. But what if she was threatened, if you scream or if you fight me I hurt the kids as well?
How many family murder suicides are there?? One just happened in Cal. I ould give my life for my childrens, or pray that if I held still I could see a way to get out of it and distract him possibly, but it did not happen.
One leg has dirt I think I read, which reminds me of laying down my sons heavy ball bag. So She was placed there.
There was hair taken from the car trunk, we need to knows whos it was. And grass from the right front seat.
He changed shoes went back t hrris teater to establish himself.
But, as many times as I have looked at the tape I do not notice him being nervouse enough for me to suspect him in this.
B, someone she knew, came up and did this.
C someone that was secretly stalking her, did it in the same manner.
She was beautiful, smart, fun loving, and would have known the amily dynamics. So who knew her habbits well enough that could possibly hyp where someone would lurk that would have a secret crush on her???
It has been mentioned that she often went out and stayed out. Whwre did she go? I go to chucke Cheese with my S=so for hours, and the same one.
I think what bothrs all of us most is that it is too clean, all the others latley there was a element of a sloppy move and the person was caught, this was just too clean and we want to whipe some thing up for her!!!!!!!
So sorry so long!!!!
And where is the spell check.
button????

 

[longtimelurker]

Another thing I wonder is why did Brad have shoes one time he went to Harris Teeter and sandals on just a little while later? Were those sneakers and sandals the ones that were removed in the SW,were they very clean on the soles or was there residue on them?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Very good questions indeed. We don't know exactly whose blue/gray running shoes were removed from the house nor do we know whose 'rainbow sandals' were removed either. Sizes of shoes were not noted in the list of items seized. It's interesting that shoes were changed within the 20 min, as shown on the tapes. Further, there appears to be some difference in the shirt underneath the jacket (collar showing in one video vs. nothing showing in the other video).

 

[SleuthyGal]

Welcome Lillypad!

 

[jmflu]

Very good questions indeed. We don't know exactly whose blue/gray running shoes were removed from the house nor do we know whose 'rainbow sandals' were removed either. Sizes of shoes were not noted in the list of items seized. It's interesting that shoes were changed within the 20 min, as shown on the tapes. Further, there appears to be some difference in the shirt underneath the jacket (collar showing in one video vs. nothing showing in the other video).

And since I haven't read the affs in a while... did Brad say he got home and Nancy asked him to go back to the store... or Nancy CALLED him and he turned around and went back?

Because if the latter... there would be no reason for change of shoes. If he did make it home, perhaps he took off his shoes then when he had to turn around and go back, he just slipped on the closest things to the door.

 

[Anderson]

And since I haven't read the affs in a while... did Brad say he got home and Nancy asked him to go back to the store... or Nancy CALLED him and he turned around and went back?

Because if the latter... there would be no reason for change of shoes. If he did make it home, perhaps he took off his shoes then when he had to turn around and go back, he just slipped on the closest things to the door.

I believe that BC said that she called. Hmmm.. I will check on this later.