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

[SleuthyGal]

RC doesn't sound like himself at ALL today. I'm not used to seeing him short on patience or sarcastic. As long as I've been reading these forums, he's been the steady hand of intellect that many of us turn to.

Now I'm almost afraid to ask another question!

RC is not happy with the state of our economy right now and especially what is happening to the Dow.

I, of course, remain very worried about the mounting expenses and billable hours K&B are racking up in the case; I may have to have a talk with them about this.

 

[jumpstreet]

Since we do not know what leads LE had, we do not know their priority of resolving each of those leads to conclusion. Why they waited 2 months - you will have to ask them as they assigned the priority to its value. As stated before, more than likely the phone records were in hand, this is pretty much a given since LE was trying to get Hiller to say he used Nancy's phone in some fashion prior to this warrant being executed. Something led them to question Hiller in this fashion - it obviously was not the data in the phone or in the books.

Thanks. Im surprised LE didn't go ahead and put internal-phone exam, and address book exam in the initial SW of the house/computers as soon as they obtained it. Then, they've got that option for later. You're right, who knows why this particular (seemingly baseline) effort wasn't done sooner, and yes, I'm sure they're very busy. Regardless, for some reason, it wasn't, so I think I understand now why they need the warrant for the address books (b/c they weren't obtained via SW initially)

Your thought that it's just a "general cleaning up loose ends" may very well be the case. It occurs to me though that it also could very well be some new discovery of lead has led them to look for something specific among these things. Either seems plausible.

Thanks again.

 

[raisincharlie]

RC is not happy with the state of our economy right now and especially what is happening to the Dow.

ROFL

No one should be happy this load of , well you know what. :crazy:

Actually, this warrant issue is all that is "wrong" with me with respect to this forum. Lost my patience is all, for which I apologize.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Clearly what needs to happen here is after Jump has thoroughly questioned John Betts, Chief ME on the remaining items of the autopsy, she needs to head over to CPD headquarters and get JA Young and the other detectives into a room for in-depth questioning on this whole cell phone issue and why they wasted valuable time NOT looking at every nook 'n cranny of Nancy's cell phone within the first week of the investigation! Chop-Chop, time's a wastin'!

Jump, I live not far from there so stop by afterwards and let me know how it all worked out! NO STONE UNTURNED, I SAY!

 

[jumpstreet]

Clearly what needs to happen here is after Jump has thoroughly questioned John Betts, Chief ME on the remaining items of the autopsy, she needs to head over to CPD headquarters and get JA Young and the other detectives into a room for in-depth questioning on this whole cell phone issue and why they wasted valuable time NOT looking at every nook 'n cranny of Nancy's cell phone within the first week of the investigation! Chop-Chop, time's a wastin'!

Jump, I live not far from there so stop by afterwards and let me know how it all worked out! NO STONE UNTURNED!

Hey... I did my part in getting the initial autopsy pushed out a couple weeks ago (per your suggestion). I thought last week everyone decided it was your turn to follow-up with J.A. Young and report back. I can't do everything here...

 

[SleuthyGal]

Hey... I did my part in getting the initial autopsy pushed out a couple weeks ago (per your suggestion). I thought last week everyone decided it was your turn to follow-up with J.A. Young and report back. I can't do everything here...

No I offered to take one for the team be frisked (after Mahmoo of course). I don't have any questions about their methods or timing of looking at the cell phone and I am not confused about the SWs. My only convo with JA Young at this point might be about the state of my lawn care, and possibly some questions about the Cooper case if there's time, but on the cell phone side, I'm good!

 

[mahmoo]

ROFL

No one should be happy this load of , well you know what. :crazy:

Actually, this warrant issue is all that is "wrong" with me with respect to this forum. Lost my patience is all, for which I apologize.

Sorry forther_beatingA_Deadthe warrant issue. Guess I was absent from class the day it got discussed. Thanks for your patience & persistence RC........I do have a clearer picture of the situation now though :blowkiss:. I'm a little slow but do catch on eventually.....well, most of the time .

 

[Daphne69]

Okay, I know this is ther_beatingA_Dead, but ...

RC, are you saying there is an evidentiary difference between articles in plain sight and those handed willingly to officers? (I'm just curious -- never thought about it before.)

As to why they are just now looking at the data, the phone and address books were given initially to help in the missing persons case. Maybe they didn't need the info on them at that point? They hads losts of other things to look at and poeple to talk to? Now that they are investigating a homicide, something may have come up that leads them to believe there is important info in them related to the homicide itself -- not something exclusively important to the divorce.

 

[jumpstreet]

...but on the cell phone side, I'm good!

I'm "good" (enough) on it too...

I know I'm not the only one here who found it at least a little surprising that items collected on day-1 weren't examined more closely until now (not just the first week, but for several months). I do trust that all the public officials (LE/DA/etc) are doing the best job they know to do under the circumstances, so I'm sure there are (valid) reasons.

Regardless though, I agree with RC, that whatever the reason, it obviously wasn't a priority at the time, with the other threads they were investigating, and other information they had at their direct disposal. Certainly some of the same data from the phone could be obtained from phone records.

My (personal) thought is that some recent reveleation/inforamtion has made them think it worthwhile to (now) peel that onion, and see where it leads...

I'll 'pass' though on marching down to CPD headquarters to demand answers... as mentioned - paid my dues with that trip to the ME's office a couple weeks prior...

 

[Star12]

During the search warrant of the house ? No they did not, they already had them.

According to the recent SW return, the items were not seized.

And I have a feeling that the need for this SW has to do with recent discussions LE has had regarding usage of Nancy's phone.

But I also am curious as to why this would be the only phone searched.

Also, I am reminded of the video - the first visit to HT? - where BC is spending an unusual amount of time looking at the cell phone he was holding at the register.

 

[raisincharlie]

According to the recent SW return, the items were not seized.

I'm agreeing with you - there is no warrant which includes the actual physical siezure of the telephone or the address books. The warrant issued on 22 September was strictly for the contents of those items, not for the items themselves.

LE did however have those items in their possesion as is clear in the 22 September warrant.

 

[raisincharlie]

According to the recent SW return, the items were not seized.

And I have a feeling that the need for this SW has to do with recent discussions LE has had regarding usage of Nancy's phone.

But I also am curious as to why this would be the only phone searched.

Also, I am reminded of the video - the first visit to HT? - where BC is spending an unusual amount of time looking at the cell phone he was holding at the register.

How do we know LE did not subpeona all of the records for phones ? For Nancy's, Brad's, Hiller's and the one found in Brad's office and whoever else they felt relevant. The media has not been kind enough to post all of the documents related to this case.

Would a review of such phone records not theoretically provide necessary information ? The fact that we have seen no other warrants for search of astral data from other phones says something.

 

[RaleighNC]

the recent postings of eye believe has me wondering....

There is something that just does not make sense about the (lack of) clothing which was found.

I think we all believe that the dump site is not the murder scene. So - if we believe that the scene was outside the home, then we have to think that the murderer removed clothing. (would one remove clothing in order to leave a body more exposed and encourage insects / decomp?) I can see it being reasonably easy to remove the clothing that was missing - shorts, socks, shoes, tshirt, etc. and then getting markedly more difficult for the sports bra - heck - you have to be a contortionist to get into one on a good day.... so - that's where the assailant stopped. This kinda makes senses.

If you believe that she was killed in the home, something bothers me about the bra being the only thing.

Maybe I am a complete moron, but when I get dressed, I am an underwear first kind of person. The bra being the only item on seems odd and it would seem odd to be the first item to choose to put on.

Am I reaching here? Using a single item to determine the murder scene?

 

[raisincharlie]

Okay, I know this is ther_beatingA_Dead, but ...

RC, are you saying there is an evidentiary difference between articles in plain sight and those handed willingly to officers? (I'm just curious -- never thought about it before.)

As to why they are just now looking at the data, the phone and address books were given initially to help in the missing persons case. Maybe they didn't need the info on them at that point? They hads losts of other things to look at and poeple to talk to? Now that they are investigating a homicide, something may have come up that leads them to believe there is important info in them related to the homicide itself -- not something exclusively important to the divorce.

No I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is the phone was locked, it therefore required a warrant to obtain the data inside the phone by bypassing the lock. LE states they are looking for specific items, little to do with a list of calls made, a list of people yes but not calls to or from. We do not know about the address books - a latch would suffice for privacy reasons since they were not collected under a warrant.

I only have suspicions as to why LE is now looking to review the data contained in those items.

 

[raisincharlie]

the recent postings of eye believe has me wondering....

There is something that just does not make sense about the (lack of) clothing which was found.

I think we all believe that the dump site is not the murder scene. So - if we believe that the scene was outside the home, then we have to think that the murderer removed clothing. (would one remove clothing in order to leave a body more exposed and encourage insects / decomp?) I can see it being reasonably easy to remove the clothing that was missing - shorts, socks, shoes, tshirt, etc. and then getting markedly more difficult for the sports bra - heck - you have to be a contortionist to get into one on a good day.... so - that's where the assailant stopped. This kinda makes senses.

If you believe that she was killed in the home, something bothers me about the bra being the only thing.

Maybe I am a complete moron, but when I get dressed, I am an underwear first kind of person. The bra being the only item on seems odd and it would seem odd to be the first item to choose to put on.

Am I reaching here? Using a single item to determine the murder scene?

I think these are some interesting and well thought out points. I think the murder scene can be determined as much as by what is present as by what is not present. For example, if there were no footprints around where Nancy's body lay, that would indicate she came to be there by inertia - either thrown or rolled down the embankment. The vegetation along the embankment would tell the tale about that as well. If there are no footprints it would be reasonable to assume the clothing was removed before being placed where her body lay. If there is no dirt on the bottom of her feet it would also tell a tale of something. Of course if LE found the other clothing there it would indicate she could have been undressed there. Just rambling but I think more than one aspect goes into the determination of the murder scene, as to what transpired at the scene where she was found and so on. If this seems nonsensical - sorry, it seems I am having trouble today getting ideas across.

 

[Daphne69]

What I am saying is the phone was locked, it therefore required a warrant to obtain the data inside the phone by bypassing the lock.

We do not know about the address books - a latch would suffice for privacy reasons since they were not collected under a warrant.

~ respectfully snipped

Not that it ultimately matters, but I was thinking about the address books. It was mentioned that they weren't seized or part of a search warrant because BC handed them to officers. When it was pointed out that CPD still had possession of said items, someone (forget who without looking back) posted a quote about the authority to seize items in plain sight. I (mistakenly, I suspect) assumed that that reference to seizing meant CPD could open the books. However, since BC handed CPD the address books (instead of them being in plain sight), they were part of the warrant dated 9/22.

I was just curious if it made a difference whether the CPD were handed the books or they were in plain sight. Not saying it's relevant here; I was just interested.

 

[jmflu]

Well, for a different reason, yes... there is now a reason for Brad's prints to be the most recent on the phone.

 

[raisincharlie]

~ respectfully snipped

Not that it ultimately matters, but I was thinking about the address books. It was mentioned that they weren't seized or part of a search warrant because BC handed them to officers. When it was pointed out that CPD still had possession of said items, someone (forget who without looking back) posted a quote about the authority to seize items in plain sight. I (mistakenly, I suspect) assumed that that reference to seizing meant CPD could open the books. However, since BC handed CPD the address books (instead of them being in plain sight), they were part of the warrant dated 9/22.

I was just curious if it made a difference whether the CPD were handed the books or they were in plain sight. Not saying it's relevant here; I was just interested.

Daphne,

I think what is obvious from the warrant for the cell phone data and the address books is that LE did indeed look into the books when Brad handed them to LE. I say this because the 22 September warrant clearly indicates that the entries and writings were consistent with Nancy's writing. This tells me that someone definitely looked and someone definitely identified the writing. As to them being included in the 22 September warrant, I think the point is simple - if LE is now going to review them and they find anything that could be used in court during trial to prove any point of the prosecutions case, it is best, and not arguable that the information was obtained properly under an authorized search warrant.

 

[momto3kids]

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:

 

[jmflu]

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:

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