PDA

View Full Version : State v Bradley Cooper 3-18-2011


Pages : [1] 2 3

CyberPro
03-18-2011, 01:54 AM
New Thread - Court is in session for a half day today.

otto
03-18-2011, 05:21 AM
Like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf3BNRF9ICc

:great:

By the way, that is Otto coming out to tell the court gallery to be quiet.

Indeed, if it has to do with denigrating the parents of 30-something married adults with children or personal remarks.

I get the impression that today will be more secret testimony about beliefs from police officers that thought Nancy was murdered at home, but can't exactly point to any hard evidence. Police couldn't get a scent tracking dog to figure out where Nancy was the night before she disappeared. Blame it on the shoe. Police allege that Brad Cooper removed his license plate to avoid detection while disposing of Nancy's body, but realize not only that removing a license plate would draw more attention, but would also create unnecessary extra time at the dump site. Do they really believe that he removed a license plate to give himself an advantage?

What if Nancy, upset about her circumstances (telling everyone she met about it), did go for a quick run on her own in the morning? She didn't always drive, sometimes she walked for groceries, and maybe sometimes she ran from home to go for a run. She was telling complete strangers about her plight, almost everyone she met heard her marriage woes. How do we know that she didn't encounter the wrong person at that difficult time in her life? Chandra Levy was murdered by a complete stranger even though her boyfriend looked good for it.

otto
03-18-2011, 05:34 AM
Is it true that the medical exmaner, Dr Butt, didn't complete a sexual assault examination? A woman was found on the side of the road in a new development. She disappeared 2 days earlier while out for a run. Why wasn't this test done? Were there too many bugs?

otto
03-18-2011, 05:46 AM
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9284524/

carolinalady
03-18-2011, 06:36 AM
Just wanted to say a quick thanks to SG for taking the time to go to court yesterday. I also wanted to thank all of those who've brought the pictures into the threads.

Y'all are all so busy on here after I go to bed! I've caught up on all of the comments only to have to go to work today and miss all of today's testimony (of course, I'm guessing another blackout day).

I did a search on Blackberry password protection. It is well documented in different Blackberry forums that entering an incorrect password 10 times results in erasing of all personal data from the Blackberry and it is unrecoverable. There are numerous posts about that topic prior to the time that JA Young wiped the BB memory and I found them easily doing a simple Google search. I don't know about the backup data. Maybe they did make a copy of the data on the phone to preserve evidence (like to a second BB) and that's what defense is referring to when saying the backup was also erased.

BrownRice
03-18-2011, 07:12 AM
I wonder if there are any pictures of Brad previous to Nancy missing that show him NOT wearing a wedding ring? I don't find any significance to the ring unless he just started wearing it after she disappeared.

Re: the bed. Maybe we should all post a picture of our beds this a.m. before we make them (assuming everyone makes their beds daily) to see if all slept in beds look alike. I'd say no they don't.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 08:38 AM
Excellent catch (if it is his left hand that had the bandaid)

http://www.kurtzandblum.com/CM/UploadedImages/IMG_0104.jpg
http://www.kurtzandblum.com/CM/UploadedImages/IMG_0106.jpg

It is an excellent catch but does more to bolster the injuries being healed by the time the picture was taken. If he had a bandaid on, I would think it was covering some kind of cut. So the day she went missing, there was an injury to that finger that required a bandaid. When the picture was taken several days later, no evidence of the cut.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 09:12 AM
Just wanted to say a quick thanks to SG for taking the time to go to court yesterday. I also wanted to thank all of those who've brought the pictures into the threads.

Y'all are all so busy on here after I go to bed! I've caught up on all of the comments only to have to go to work today and miss all of today's testimony (of course, I'm guessing another blackout day).

I did a search on Blackberry password protection. It is well documented in different Blackberry forums that entering an incorrect password 10 times results in erasing of all personal data from the Blackberry and it is unrecoverable. There are numerous posts about that topic prior to the time that JA Young wiped the BB memory and I found them easily doing a simple Google search. I don't know about the backup data. Maybe they did make a copy of the data on the phone to preserve evidence (like to a second BB) and that's what defense is referring to when saying the backup was also erased.

So far, the only indication that JA Young actually erased the BB data is Kurtz saying so in his opening. In light of that several pieces of his opening have been shown to be, shall we say - windys ? Another came out yesterday, in his opening Kurtz also accused the FBI of wrong doing with respect to the computers, that was clarified yesterday and even Kurtz agreed the FBI did not do anything it should not have done.

With that in mind and not being willing to accept Kurtz's opening, I'll wait for testimony regarding the supposed wipe out of Nancy's BB.

Maja
03-18-2011, 09:16 AM
Indeed, if it has to do with denigrating the parents of 30-something married adults with children or personal remarks.

I get the impression that today will be more secret testimony about beliefs from police officers that thought Nancy was murdered at home, but can't exactly point to any hard evidence. Police couldn't get a scent tracking dog to figure out where Nancy was the night before she disappeared. Blame it on the shoe. Police allege that Brad Cooper removed his license plate to avoid detection while disposing of Nancy's body, but realize not only that removing a license plate would draw more attention, but would also create unnecessary extra time at the dump site. Do they really believe that he removed a license plate to give himself an advantage?

What if Nancy, upset about her circumstances (telling everyone she met about it), did go for a quick run on her own in the morning? She didn't always drive, sometimes she walked for groceries, and maybe sometimes she ran from home to go for a run. She was telling complete strangers about her plight, almost everyone she met heard her marriage woes. How do we know that she didn't encounter the wrong person at that difficult time in her life? Chandra Levy was murdered by a complete stranger even though her boyfriend looked good for it.


Just because the police, or anyone else for that matter, "believe" BC murdered NC, doesn't prove, beyond reasonable doubt he did it. Evidence - not seeing too much of it thus far.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 09:25 AM
So far, the only indication that JA Young actually erased the BB data is Kurtz saying so in his opening. In light of that several pieces of his opening have been shown to be, shall we say - windys ? Another came out yesterday, in his opening Kurtz also accused the FBI of wrong doing with respect to the computers, that was clarified yesterday and even Kurtz agreed the FBI did not do anything it should not have done.

With that in mind and not being willing to accept Kurtz's opening, I'll wait for testimony regarding the supposed wipe out of Nancy's BB.

Sure...that's why I almost always say "according to the defense" when I've brought it up.

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 09:28 AM
Indeed, if it has to do with denigrating the parents of 30-something married adults with children or personal remarks.

I get the impression that today will be more secret testimony about beliefs from police officers that thought Nancy was murdered at home, but can't exactly point to any hard evidence. Police couldn't get a scent tracking dog to figure out where Nancy was the night before she disappeared. Blame it on the shoe. Police allege that Brad Cooper removed his license plate to avoid detection while disposing of Nancy's body, but realize not only that removing a license plate would draw more attention, but would also create unnecessary extra time at the dump site. Do they really believe that he removed a license plate to give himself an advantage?

What if Nancy, upset about her circumstances (telling everyone she met about it), did go for a quick run on her own in the morning? She didn't always drive, sometimes she walked for groceries, and maybe sometimes she ran from home to go for a run. She was telling complete strangers about her plight, almost everyone she met heard her marriage woes. How do we know that she didn't encounter the wrong person at that difficult time in her life? Chandra Levy was murdered by a complete stranger even though her boyfriend looked good for it.

Yes Otto, that is a good point about Chandra Levy. However, I will say running in a wooded park around D.C. is a bit more perilous vs Cary NC. Not to say it could not happen, but MUCH less likely. Also, Gary Condit had a solid alibi and there was nothing connecting him except they had a relationship. Thats like saying Pearson killed Nancy because they had a secret relationship....no evidence whatsoever.

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 09:31 AM
There is a letter from CPD saying the BlackbBerry Pearl was erased and some details about how it happened.
I'll try to find it...

water_dancing
03-18-2011, 09:32 AM
http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/specialreports/nancycooper/2011/03/17/9287772/172295-bc7-479x357.jpg

Is this one of the photos that was taken on 7/12/08?

The slightly crooked license plate was not what got my attention with this picture. It appears that this car is on the far side of the driveway and there would not be a way of pulling it into the garage without moving(or hitting) the SUV.

It would seem that moving both cars would draw potential attention at this point in the morning to get this car into the garage. Was there damage noted on the front passenger side or the SUV or did the grass appear to be driven on this side of the driveway?

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 09:34 AM
http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/specialreports/nancycooper/2011/03/17/9287772/172295-bc7-479x357.jpg

Is this one of the photos that was taken on 7/12/08?

The slightly crooked license plate was not what got my attention with this picture. It appears that this car is on the far side of the driveway and there would not be a way of pulling it into the garage without moving(or hitting) the SUV.

It would seem that moving both cars would draw potential attention at this point in the morning to get this car into the garage. Was there damage noted on the front passenger side or the SUV or did the grass appear to be driven on this side of the driveway?


Wow, great point. I never noticed that.

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 09:35 AM
It is an excellent catch but does more to bolster the injuries being healed by the time the picture was taken. If he had a bandaid on, I would think it was covering some kind of cut. So the day she went missing, there was an injury to that finger that required a bandaid. When the picture was taken several days later, no evidence of the cut.

Yes, if it were a 'cut', that would be more innocent vs a scratch or abrasion.
5 days later and no visible mark tells me it was more of a superficial scratch caused when she tried to pry his hands off her neck.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 09:38 AM
How do we know that she didn't encounter the wrong person at that difficult time in her life?

She did.

Brad Cooper.

right after midnight on 7/12/08.

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 09:38 AM
water-dancing, that is a great observation. However, I think this is more an optical illusion.
Note the center space line in the drive. If it is like mine, that splits the drive 50/50.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 09:39 AM
Yes, if it were a 'cut', that would be more innocent vs a scratch or abrasion.
5 days later and no visible mark tells me it was more of a superficial scratch caused when she tried to pry his hands off her neck.

If he needed a band-aid...that would indicate it was enough of a scratch/cut to bleed. That would not likely be healed enough to not be visible 5 days later.

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 09:41 AM
If he needed a band-aid...that would indicate it was enough of a scratch/cut to bleed. That would not likely be healed enough to not be visible 5 days later.


.I can see using the band-Aid to simply mask the scratch

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 09:42 AM
Brad #CooperTrial resumes w/ undercover officer back on stand. WRAL can't record testimony. Reporter @tlynnnews sending notes. We'll tweet.
via web Favorite Retweet Reply

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 09:43 AM
If he needed a band-aid...that would indicate it was enough of a scratch/cut to bleed. That would not likely be healed enough to not be visible 5 days later.
Neosporin with a bandaid and three days on a superficial booboo, it's gone. Done it many times.

Good morning all. :)

Albert
03-18-2011, 09:43 AM
If he needed a band-aid...that would indicate it was enough of a scratch/cut to bleed. That would not likely be healed enough to not be visible 5 days later.

Assuming the "cut" is not on the palm side of the hand.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 09:44 AM
water-dancing, that is a great observation. However, I think this is more an optical illusion.
Note the center space line in the drive. If it is like mine, that splits the drive 50/50.

Optical Illusion? The picture is taken from directly behind the car. You can see the wall of the house clearly through the windshield. The SUV is parked directly on the center line of the driveway. The car is parked at the grass line. There is no illusion there. If that picture was taken on the 12th of July, Water Dancing just destroyed the notion that he pulled that car into the garage to load a body. That's not optical illusion.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 09:44 AM
Assuming the "cut" is not on the palm side of the hand.

Sure. Again, all we know is that there is nothing visible on the 17th. Great police work cpd :banghead:

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 09:47 AM
Optical Illusion? The picture is taken from directly behind the car. You can see the wall of the house clearly through the windshield. The SUV is parked directly on the center line of the driveway. The car is parked at the grass line. There is no illusion there. If that picture was taken on the 12th of July, Water Dancing just destroyed the notion that he pulled that car into the garage to load a body. That's not optical illusion.

Tell ya what. If you have a few extra minutes today, head over there and see for yourself. You will see there is a car width of room on the right side of that center concrete spacer.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 09:48 AM
A car can be pulled in to a garage at an angle, without damaging the car, the one next to it, or any part of the garage.

I know this first-hand as I had a boyfriend who was quite adept at doing just this. I was amazed at how he could maneuver a car around another car to get in our (then) garage, which was a shared garage (apt in a large city).

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 09:48 AM
For those that missed the Jeremy Bergin testimony the 500 times it played yesterday on WRAL..... It's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacckk. :)

Jess
03-18-2011, 09:48 AM
Has it been posted which finger the bandaid was on ? Because the pinky finger is not visible in either photograph.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 09:50 AM
Has it been posted which finger the bandaid was on ? Because the pinky finger is not visible in either photograph.

Middle finger.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 09:51 AM
A car can be pulled in to a garage at an angle, without damaging the car, the one next to it, or any part of the garage.

I know this first-hand as I had a boyfriend who was quite adept at doing just this. I was amazed at how he could maneuver a car around another car to get in our (then) garage, which was a shared garage (apt in a large city).

But the right side of the garage was cluttered. He couldn't have pulled in at a straight angle...he would have had to almost do a crescent shape. Very unlikely.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 09:52 AM
Optical Illusion? The picture is taken from directly behind the car. You can see the wall of the house clearly through the windshield. The SUV is parked directly on the center line of the driveway. The car is parked at the grass line. There is no illusion there. If that picture was taken on the 12th of July, Water Dancing just destroyed the notion that he pulled that car into the garage to load a body. That's not optical illusion.

If you look at the links above these forum threads you will see a photos thread. Look at the second page and there is a picture of the two cars in the driveway from a different angle. I think you'll see that he would have had no problem getting his car in the garage if her car were at the center line.

cygnusx1
03-18-2011, 09:52 AM
Yes Otto, that is a good point about Chandra Levy. However, I will say running in a wooded park around D.C. is a bit more perilous vs Cary NC. Not to say it could not happen, but MUCH less likely. Also, Gary Condit had a solid alibi and there was nothing connecting him except they had a relationship. Thats like saying Pearson killed Nancy because they had a secret relationship....no evidence whatsoever.

Hmmm...have they found the murderer of Jennifer Neilsen who was found behind a convenience store on Lake Wheeler Rd (less than 5 miles from Lochmere) the year before Nancy's death?

http://www.wral.com/news/local/page/1502624/



(http://www.wral.com/news/local/page/1502624/)

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 09:53 AM
A car can be pulled in to a garage at an angle, without damaging the car, the one next to it, or any part of the garage.

I know this first-hand as I had a boyfriend who was quite adept at doing just this. I was amazed at how he could maneuver a car around another car to get in our (then) garage, which was a shared garage (apt in a large city).

That BMW 325 is not wide at all. It should be a given it could clear the X5 to get in the garage. Of course the 'given' gives a lot of credit to CPD to obviously see that. On second thought.....

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 09:54 AM
Bulletin:

There's a wild bird flying around inside my house, pooping on my newly cleaned drapes.


We now return to our regularly scheduled trial talk.

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 09:55 AM
Hmmm...have they found the murderer Jennifer Neilsen who was found behind a convenience store on Lake Wheeler Rd (less than 5 miles from Lochmere) the year before Nancy's death?

http://www.wral.com/news/local/page/1502624/



(http://www.wral.com/news/local/page/1502624/)

Yes, stabbed once and robbed in a very sketch part of SE Raleigh when she was delivering USA Today newspapers at 4:30 AM to a convience store.
Big difference vs 7AM near Lochmere in Cary.

Of course crimes like these happen in Wake County...its just not too often

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 09:57 AM
But the right side of the garage was cluttered. He couldn't have pulled in at a straight angle...he would have had to almost do a crescent shape. Very unlikely.

His side was the side cleared out. (Pictures on page 18 of yesterdays thread)

cygnusx1
03-18-2011, 09:58 AM
Yes, stabbed once and robbed in a very sketch part of SE Raleigh when she was delivering USA Today newspapers at 4:30 AM to a convience store.
Big difference vs 7AM near Lochmere in Cary.

Of course crimes like these happen in Wake County...its just not too often


I don't think they've found her killer yet though. Have they?

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 10:00 AM
I don't think they've found her killer yet though. Have they?

No. They assumed he was a random drifter.
Very sad case, as she was pregnant.

Toadlily
03-18-2011, 10:03 AM
Bulletin:

There's a wild bird flying around inside my house, pooping on my newly cleaned drapes.


We now return to our regularly scheduled trial talk.

Turn off all your lights, black out as many windows so that it can't see the light and then open a window or a door. It'll fly to the light and then go back to pooping on your car. :D

(this is knowledge that I wished that I'd had the day when one got in my place--I ended up cleaning bird poop off my canned food as he got in an open cabinet door to escape the crazy screaming lady--I should point out that I'm not really scared of birds but it was 3am and he was hiding in bedroom making a scratching sound that in my still sleepy brain sounded like a big rat)

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 10:08 AM
Defense asks undercover officer if John Pearson changed his stories. Prosecutor objects, hearsay. Jury sent out. Judge mad. #coopertrial

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 10:09 AM
Judge Gessner just scolded Brad Cooper's lawyers for making false allegations. The judge said these "have to stop!" #coopertrial

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 10:10 AM
Judge: We've wasted a phenomenal amt of time chasing these rabbits. I’m watching the jury get tired of it & this needs to stop! #coopertrial

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 10:11 AM
Consider that the jury was out much of yesterday afternoon.

No wonder the judge is furious. Your grass is growing faster than the pace of this trial at this point.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 10:12 AM
His side was the side cleared out. (Pictures on page 18 of yesterdays thread)

Yes I know. But his car is all the way on the right. He would have had to go in angled toward the left. I don't believe could have pulled straight in.

caryresident
03-18-2011, 10:12 AM
Judge: We've wasted a phenomenal amt of time chasing these rabbits. Iím watching the jury get tired of it & this needs to stop! #coopertrial


It's about time:great:

CrimeAddict
03-18-2011, 10:13 AM
Did anyone see the last 5 minutes of Part 3 for the defense opening statements? If you haven't, check it out. Kurtz really made the judge MAD.. his face was bright red, my heart jumped when I saw the judges reaction to all of it.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 10:14 AM
There are more rabbits in this case than witnesses...

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 10:17 AM
Tara Lynn Covering the #coopertrial. Still have the undercover detective on the stand so judge says not able to have live video coverage right now.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 10:18 AM
Did anyone see the last 5 minutes of Part 3 for the defense opening statements? If you haven't, check it out. Kurtz really made the judge MAD.. his face was bright red, my heart jumped when I saw the judges reaction to all of it.

I was in the courtroom that day so I saw the whole thing. He was FURIOUS! And he was giving Kurtz a big 'ole stare down in front of the jury.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 10:18 AM
Yes I know. But his car is all the way on the right. He would have had to go in angled toward the left. I don't believe could have pulled straight in.

If he had to angle at all it would have been very slight. The pavement goes right up to the edge of the garage opening. That little brick wall covers none of the pavement of the driveway from looking at the picture on here on the pictures thread.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 10:19 AM
Imagine that, Kurtz scolded for false allegations. Way to represent your client, lose your own credibility.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 10:21 AM
hotpinkstef - thank you, appreciate your efforts :D

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 10:21 AM
@wral Defense asks undercover officer if John Pearson changed his story. Prosecutor objects, hearsay. Jury sent out. Judge mad #coopertrial

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 10:22 AM
Defense asking undercover officer about his interviews with people at party if if Nancy Cooper was wearing jewelry #coopertrial @wral

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 10:24 AM
hotpinkstef - thank you, appreciate your efforts :D

it makes my day go by fast.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 10:26 AM
Imagine that, Kurtz scolded for false allegations. Way to represent your client, lose your own credibility.

Except the scolding happens after the jury is out of the room. The judge holds his tongue until they are out of earshot.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 10:32 AM
Except the scolding happens after the jury is out of the room. The judge holds his tongue until they are out of earshot.

I know but still when an objection is raised after Kurtz makes an accusation, and the jury gets sent out and they come back and a different line of questioning is undertaken, they know something was not right.

My guess is musical chairs will not keep their interest for long.

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 10:46 AM
State now redirecting in #coopertrial. Undercover officer still on the stand

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 10:48 AM
this might be over soon

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 10:49 AM
Yesterday at one point (while the jury was out) Kurtz was questioning Dismukes and his voice was really high and sarcastic and raised. Cummings asked the judge to tell Kurtz to 'tone it down, esp. since the jury wasn't in the room to hear him.' So the judge did and Kurtz changed his tone and volume.

Kurtz' voice gets higher and higher when he's upset or frustrated. I predict by the end of this trial he'll be singing falsetto and will sound like a girl when he talks.

:floorlaugh:

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 10:50 AM
Tara Lynn is doing a MUCH better job of tweeting this for WRAL.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 10:53 AM
I think WRAL took a bit of a beating over it yesterday, lack of tweets.

gorealtors
03-18-2011, 10:54 AM
Maybe these silly rabbit trails and tactics on the part of the defense will work in the prosecutions' favor. Might be losing ground with the jurors. What buffoons!

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 10:56 AM
this might be over soon

Sure am hoping that not all of the LE that investigated are undercover LE now. Some important testimony we can't hear. Glad the jury is able to hear it though.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 11:02 AM
I shouldn't have said anything. Now we've had nothing for 17 minutes. I would really like to know what points the prosecutors are hitting in this redirect.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 11:02 AM
With the feed off, I noticed a bunch of people show up yesterday, particularly after lunch. One guy sat next to me and he mentioned the trial not being filmed and gave this big sigh in frustration and I nodded.

But then this guy kept trying to make comments & chat with me during testimony and he whispered loudly and I was ready to say, "DUDE shhhhhh." I would've been angry if this guy had gotten me thrown out of court. I think he got the hint when I wouldn't engage after the first couple comments. He asked me if this was my first time at the trial (it was obviously his) and I just shook my head no.

Oh and at one point a woman brought in what looked to be her teenage daughter and a young boy (guessing he was about 10). They stayed for some of the afternoon session. I didn't realize kids were allowed in court. The judge didn't say anything.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 11:04 AM
Today is only a half day. I really hope they finish up with this witness so at least on Monday, HOPEFULLY, we will go back to live feed.

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 11:15 AM
Undercover officer: Brad Cooper could have used an arm to choke Nancy. #coopertrial

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 11:16 AM
Defense: Police started following Brad on July 12? Undercover officer: Yes, but not in a secretive manner. #coopertrial

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 11:20 AM
SG - are you aware if it has ever been disclosed where the search warrant for the "undisclosed location" was executed ? I haven't heard if that was ever revealed - have you ?

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 11:22 AM
SG - are you aware if it has ever been disclosed where the search warrant for the "undisclosed location" was executed ? I haven't heard if that was ever revealed - have you ?

I've heard nothing about that (and until you just mentioned it had forgotten that there was one for an undisclosed location).

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 11:29 AM
Am wondering if the undisclosed location was detected during LE's following of Brad, not in a secretive manner :D

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 11:30 AM
Live stream up - ME on the stand !

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 11:31 AM
Undercover officer off the stand. The medical examiner is next. WRAL.com LIVE STREAM of #CooperTrial is ON NOW: http://tiny.cc/847qv

hotpinkstef
03-18-2011, 11:43 AM
Dr. Butts: I've performed nearly 7,000 autopsies and assisted or supervised thousands more. #coopertrial

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 11:46 AM
Thanks for informing about the feed. About freaking time.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 11:50 AM
I didn't realize she was 5'10".

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 11:52 AM
Body was in a sheet?


Hmmm.

ETA: White sheet.

Tink56
03-18-2011, 11:55 AM
Tara Lynn Covering the #coopertrial. Still have the undercover detective on the stand so judge says not able to have live video coverage right now.

Good News! Would you please post a link. TIA

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 11:58 AM
Another Hmmmm.

Handling evidence w/ NO GLOVES. ACK.

N'mind. He didn't actually take any evidence OUT. WHEW.

less0305
03-18-2011, 11:59 AM
Sexual assault collection kit is presented as evidence.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:03 PM
Injury to right wing Hyoid/neck.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:09 PM
Reproductive organs external, no obvious bruising or damage. Insect issues.

JiminWilton
03-18-2011, 12:10 PM
Why does the order of examination matter? Waste of time.

Didn't this guy write down his questions and can't he read them a little faster without ummm uhhhh and redundancies?

Is prosecutor going to ignore the lack of alcohol and presence of caffeine?

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:10 PM
Insect damage to head...may obscure other injuries.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 12:11 PM
Body was in a sheet?


Hmmm.

ETA: White sheet.

I think that is how she was transported, not how she was found.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:11 PM
Concludes cause of death is strangulation, based on injury to neck/hyoid.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:12 PM
I think that is how she was transported, not how she was found.

The sheet was returned as evidence to CPD, IIRC.

NCEast
03-18-2011, 12:14 PM
If the jury gets lost with all of this, it's going to be because the prosecutor just doesn't seem prepared. There is too much dead air with his questioning. He is dragging, lagging, doesn't seem prepared with his questioning. He should be firing these questions at a quicker rate, knowing what the answers would be, and highlighting with vocal bullets more about the hyoid bone being broken and what that means, again and again.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 12:14 PM
The sheet was returned as evidence to CPD, IIRC.

She was probably covered by a sheet at the crime scene. That would have been returned in case there was evidence on the sheet (fluids, whatever).

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:15 PM
I think prosecutor is doing fine. This is necessary testimony.

less0305
03-18-2011, 12:16 PM
Caffeine in the body could go back even a day or more before death.

Coolmomof4
03-18-2011, 12:17 PM
I'm confused? Why is it assumed that she died right after she returned home after midnight? Could she have been killed in the morning as she was getting ready to leave? I guess with the stomach contents and caffeine in her system, I'm wondering if she may have died in the morning after she had coffee, since there is question as to where it came from. I suppose we would see evidence of coffee in the kitchen?


ETA: Thanks less0305. Missed that when I was typing!

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:19 PM
I'm confused? Why is it assumed that she died right after she returned home after midnight? Could she have been killed in the morning as she was getting ready to leave? I guess with the stomach contents and caffeine in her system, I'm wondering if she may have died in the morning after she had coffee, since there is question as to where it came from. I suppose we would see evidence of coffee in the kitchen?


ETA: Thanks less0305. Missed that when I was typing!
Didn't the ME testify Nancy was post rigor?

LaLaw2000
03-18-2011, 12:19 PM
This ME testimony has to be so hard for the family and friends. My heart goes out to them.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:20 PM
Objections to 3 pics by defense is over ruled.

borndem
03-18-2011, 12:22 PM
Dr. Butts on the stand: Prosecution asked about caffeine since Butts said it was present -- he stated that caffeine can stay in the body several days -- so defense can't claim that she had to have had a cup of coffee before her "run"

Good Question from the ADA! Not a home run, but it does give latitude for the effects/presence of caffeine. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

gorealtors
03-18-2011, 12:22 PM
Gary Rentz is just breaking my heart.

NCEast
03-18-2011, 12:22 PM
I think prosecutor is doing fine. This is necessary testimony.

I realize it's necessary and it's very important testimony but his delivery of the questions is much too slow and somewhat sloppy. Makes him appear to be unprepared and his inclusion of so many hmms, or umms, is just adding to the air of not being prepared to examine this witness. This witness' testimony is already well known by the prosecution and the major points are getting lost.

BrownRice
03-18-2011, 12:23 PM
I thought somebody posted recently there was testimony no sexual assault test was conducted?

BrownRice
03-18-2011, 12:27 PM
This is heartbreaking. Takes away from all of the non-essential discussion about weekly allowance, gossip, etc. A daughter, mother, friend was discarded like a piece of trash for bugs to digest. Those poor parents.

LaLaw2000
03-18-2011, 12:27 PM
Gary Rentz is just breaking my heart.

I am so glad that Mrs. Rentz is not in the courtroom.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 12:27 PM
Gary Rentz is just breaking my heart.

I was about to post the same thing. No parent should ever have to deal with that.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 12:28 PM
I think Brad is writing a book over there.

gorealtors
03-18-2011, 12:30 PM
I think Brad is writing a book over there.


Let's just dub that "busy work".:loser:

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:34 PM
Neck pressure 7 seconds to pass out...can take a number of minutes of pressure to die. No ligature marks.

caryresident
03-18-2011, 12:35 PM
I wish Brad would just stand up and say I DID IT!:behindbar

This guys voice is so sleepy.

less0305
03-18-2011, 12:38 PM
Cross

gorealtors
03-18-2011, 12:38 PM
Which of Brad's hands had the bandaid?

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:38 PM
Cross.

Dead more than 24 hrs, level of decomp consistent if she had left home 7 am.

gorealtors
03-18-2011, 12:40 PM
Yay! Caffeine theory shot to hell on the crossexam as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:41 PM
Could have missed minor bruising.

BrownRice
03-18-2011, 12:42 PM
Yay! Caffeine theory shot to hell on the crossexam as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not necessarily. I interpreted that to be a positive for the defense. He couldn't say one way or the other if larger amounts of caffeine from days before could have factored in or if she drank coffee in the a.m.

FullDisclosure
03-18-2011, 12:43 PM
Which of Brad's hands had the bandaid?

Left hand, middle finger

BrownRice
03-18-2011, 12:44 PM
I see major defense points for alcohol. No alcohol in her blood - said if she died w/ alcohol in system, most likely would have shown up in tests.

ETA: I only say points for defense because it blocks the theory of a fight when she came home which ended in murder right then.

otto
03-18-2011, 12:44 PM
It sounds like the time of death could be anytime between midnight and 8 the next morning,

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 12:47 PM
There is a reason Cummings keeps bringing up this issue of vomiting prior to death.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 12:48 PM
Cummings delivery drives me crazy. He sounds like he's on the left end of the intelligence bell curve with that slowwwww voice and those long hesitations.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:50 PM
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/09/29/3638836/1222727302-NancyCooperAutopsyReport.pdf

Autopsy report says sexual assault kit collected.

less0305
03-18-2011, 12:50 PM
There is a reason Cummings keeps bringing up this issue of vomiting prior to death.

I think he's tying together that there was little to no food in her stomach and brad had cleaned the floors.

otto
03-18-2011, 12:50 PM
Prosecution seems to be trying to extract a statement that Nancy vomited before she died to explain the empty stomach.

caryresident
03-18-2011, 12:50 PM
There is a reason Cummings keeps bringing up this issue of vomiting prior to death.


what is it?

less0305
03-18-2011, 12:51 PM
Cummings delivery drives me crazy. He sounds like he's on the left end of the intelligence bell curve with that slowwwww voice and those long hesitations.

He's not very smooth that's for sure!

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 12:51 PM
I think he's tying together that there was little to no food in her stomach and brad had cleaned the floors.

My guess, there is more to it than that.

caryresident
03-18-2011, 12:52 PM
He's not very smooth that's for sure!

He could at least say her name correct - Nancy Cupper

less0305
03-18-2011, 12:52 PM
Prosecution seems to be trying to extract a statement that Nancy vomited before she died to explain the empty stomach.

I don't think necessarily a statement that she did, but the possibility that she did because that would explain the small amount of alcohol and food in her system - AND that brad had a need to mop floors that night/morning.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 12:52 PM
There is a reason Cummings keeps bringing up this issue of vomiting prior to death.

Yeah, he just screwed up. Unless he can show Nancy didn't eat after 7:00 PM, he has to show that Nancy vomited. Or her body would have had food in her stomach if she was killed when she got home. So the lack of alcohol in her system and the lack of food would indicate she wasn't killed when she got home.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 12:52 PM
UGH the feed keeps dropping out. I'm going to have to replay the M.E. portion as a lot of it dropped for me.

lib's mom
03-18-2011, 12:53 PM
Cummings delivery drives me crazy. He sounds like he's on the left end of the intelligence bell curve with that slowwwww voice and those long hesitations.

Me too! I live in North Carolina and there's nothing I love more than a southern accent, but DANG! He talks about as fast as pond water moves! Makes me afraid jurors attention is wandering.

NCEast
03-18-2011, 12:54 PM
Cummings delivery drives me crazy. He sounds like he's on the left end of the intelligence bell curve with that slowwwww voice and those long hesitations.


Thank you! He's driving me nuts too. I could read the ME's face a couple of times that even he was getting impatient with the slow line of questioning.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 12:54 PM
Court is done for the day.

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 12:55 PM
Yeah, he just screwed up. Unless he can show Nancy didn't eat after 7:00 PM, he has to show that Nancy vomited. Or her body would have had food in her stomach if she was killed when she got home. So the lack of alcohol in her system and the lack of food would indicate she wasn't killed when she got home.


IMO, Howard blew this. His questions were very confusing for Butts, can you imagine how the jury felt? He seemed very unprepared and waffled between vomiting and being killed at midnight to eating at 7 and being killed at 1AM

The defense had clear, short points...she could have had coffee that am and killed after 7AM. I think that is what the jury will go away with.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 12:56 PM
Yeah, he just screwed up. Unless he can show Nancy didn't eat after 7:00 PM, he has to show that Nancy vomited. Or her body would have had food in her stomach if she was killed when she got home. So the lack of alcohol in her system and the lack of food would indicate she wasn't killed when she got home.

Maybe upcoming witnesses giving lab results can indeed prove Nancy vomited. Not the ME's job to figure this one out. The defense certainly steered clear of that issue. We shall see.

BrownRice
03-18-2011, 12:57 PM
So if she did vomit, would the theory be:

1. When she came home because she was drunk; or
2. During/after the fight with BC before death.

otto
03-18-2011, 12:58 PM
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/09/29/3638836/1222727302-NancyCooperAutopsyReport.pdf

Autopsy report says sexual assault kit collected.

Thanks

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 12:59 PM
Seriously, Cummings need to be replaced as a presenter in this case. He's awful. Maybe he's better behind the scenes as someone who can help with strategy, but his delivery? I fear he's going to help lose the case for the state.

They need to get Zellinger (the other male ADA) to do the direct and redirect and leave Howard on the bench! (IMHO)

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 01:00 PM
So if she did vomit, would the theory be:

1. When she came home because she was drunk; or
2. During/after the fight with BC before death.

I think they are attempting to suggest that NC may have vomited as she was being strangled...as a result of the action of being strangled, which would account for why there was little left in her system (and possibly there could be evidence in some other place in the case).

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 01:02 PM
Cummings not only sounds 'slow,' in person I noticed he looks perpetually confused with the slack jaw look on his face, mouth hanging open, the glasses pushed down his nose, and the lack of a firm jawline. Combined with his voice and hesitations, he could put anyone to sleep, confuse anyone, and bore anyone to tears. I think he was a poor choice to present this case.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 01:03 PM
I think they are attempting to suggest that NC may have vomited as she was being strangled...as a result of the action of being strangled, which would account for why there was little left in her system (and possibly there could be evidence in some other place in the case).

Watch Donna Lopez's testimony again.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 01:06 PM
Watch Donna Lopez's testimony again.

Now don't do that RC! I don't have time right now to replay her testimony... tell me what you noticed! ;-)

ETA: I already know D. Lopez made the avocado salad which contained chopped onion and Nancy ate some of it.

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 01:07 PM
Seriously, Cummings need to be replaced as a presenter in this case. He's awful. Maybe he's better behind the scenes as someone who can help with strategy, but his delivery? I fear he's going to help lose the case for the state.

They need to get Zellinger (the other male ADA) to do the direct and redirect and leave Howard on the bench! (IMHO)

I agree, he is terrible. Totally unprepared...at least that is the way he came across.I was really surprised the way he handled the stomach contents and caffeine .It was almost like he just read the autopsy for the first time this morning. Wake up Howard or you are gonna lose!

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 01:09 PM
I think they are attempting to suggest that NC may have vomited as she was being strangled...as a result of the action of being strangled, which would account for why there was little left in her system (and possibly there could be evidence in some other place in the case).

But the ME kind of dismissed this by saying if she vomited enough to completely clear her stomach. Wouldn't that be hard to do with someones hands around your neck? I mean seriously (and I know this is gross)...I had a stomach bug last month. When I vomited, it took about 5 full heaves before I was dry heaving. That is what it would have taken to empty her stomach contents. And that is highly unlikely. It's also highly unlikely that she didn't eat or drink anything after 7:00 PM. So the ME testimony really points to her dying much later than 1:00 am.

DogWood
03-18-2011, 01:13 PM
A little more about what happened in court this morning.

Judge scolds lawyer in Cooper trial
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8020641

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 01:13 PM
And that is highly unlikely.

Why is it highly unlikley NC couldn't have gotten sick and vomited enough to clear out her stomach (before ever being strangled)?

Just because it took YOU a certain amount of vomiting to clear YOUR stomach, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 01:14 PM
Maybe upcoming witnesses giving lab results can indeed prove Nancy vomited. Not the ME's job to figure this one out. The defense certainly steered clear of that issue. We shall see.

iMO, the defense steered clear of vomiting because it was so far fetched. They knew they won that argument and , imo, Cummings looked desperate suggesting it..
If they had some proof (can't imagine what it would be, cause Butts said he would have no way of knowing that), why did Cummings later say perhaps she ate at 7 and he killed her at 1AM? He waffled and showed the jury he has no confidence in his own theory.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 01:15 PM
Now don't do that RC! I don't have time right now to replay her testimony... tell me what you noticed! ;-)

ETA: I already know D. Lopez made the avocado salad which contained chopped onion and Nancy ate some of it.

Just ask yourself why did they have JA point out that the ducks and sticks were gone, why Alice Stubbs grilled Brad about the foyer area ad naseum, why Dismukes says he believes Nancy was murdered in the foyer, why the ME testified to how long it would take for loss of consciousness and if the pressure was released what would happen, and what was the point of Donna Lopez at all in the scheme of things, she didn't know Nancy from boo.

dgfred
03-18-2011, 01:15 PM
He could have hit her in the head concussing her, causing her to vomit at some point. Strangulation could have been a while later.

carolinalady
03-18-2011, 01:18 PM
So far, the only indication that JA Young actually erased the BB data is Kurtz saying so in his opening. In light of that several pieces of his opening have been shown to be, shall we say - windys ? Another came out yesterday, in his opening Kurtz also accused the FBI of wrong doing with respect to the computers, that was clarified yesterday and even Kurtz agreed the FBI did not do anything it should not have done.

With that in mind and not being willing to accept Kurtz's opening, I'll wait for testimony regarding the supposed wipe out of Nancy's BB.

It's in the motion to dismiss and it states that the defense received a letter 9 months after the erasure of the phone that notified them that the contents had been erased.

carolinalady
03-18-2011, 01:20 PM
He could have hit her in the head concussing her, causing her to vomit at some point. Strangulation could have been a while later.

Wouldn't the concussion be noted during the autopsy?

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 01:20 PM
So what time did she eat her food at the party?
There was earlier testimony, right?

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 01:22 PM
what was the point of Donna Lopez at all in the scheme of things, she didn't know Nancy from boo.

Donna Lopez

1. Helped established Nancy's state of mind on 7/11 at the party as being very unhappy & headed for divorce with a lot of tension in the marriage (per what NC told her)
2. Established what she saw Nancy eat at the party (which included a dish that had onions)
3. Confirmed that Nancy drank wine and beer
4. Confirmed that Nancy had some kind of stomach issue in which she shouldn't eat dairy, but Nancy did eat lemon cake and Nancy made mention that she shouldn't eat it)
5. Showed that Nancy was helpful (carrying her daughter to the car and getting the girl settled in)
6. Showed how worried even a new acquaintance could be in hearing how tense things were for Nancy and the dread she felt about Nancy's situation.

If there is something else I obviously missed it.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 01:24 PM
Nancy was seen eating by various people at different times that night.

She got to the party around 6pm. At various points she was seen munching on pita and hummus, avocado salad, ribs, lemon cake, had some wine and beer. So it sounds like she ate for some period of hours (maybe munching a bit here and there).

We don't know exactly what time she took her last bite of food.

dgfred
03-18-2011, 01:27 PM
Wouldn't the concussion be noted during the autopsy?

I'm not sure... but good question/statement.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 01:27 PM
And of course all the questioning of witnesses about items in the foyer, what was there before 7/12 and on or after 7/12, along with Stubbs' questions about all the cleaning in the foyer area are to suggest that BC attacked NC in the foyer...or at least had her body there at some point, and items were possibly damaged (and thus discarded) and the area needed to be cleaned.

carolinalady
03-18-2011, 01:28 PM
She had Crohn's, right? I guess we'd have to hear testimony about what her normal reaction to eating dairy is?

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 01:31 PM
She had Crohn's, right? I guess we'd have to hear testimony about what her normal reaction to eating dairy is?

Correct, she did have Crohn's.

Just the Fax
03-18-2011, 01:34 PM
For all we know she was killed at 4AM when he said Katie woke up?
The state obviously wanted to say around midnight when she came home. They should have anticipated the stomach contents issue and given the jury a much bigger window to consider all along. The defense had a much more believable argument on this portion of the evidence.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 01:36 PM
For all we know she was killed at 4AM?

Yes! He could have snuck into her room in the early morning hrs of 7/12 (well after 1am) and strangled her in there. There's certainly nothing that precludes that scenario from happening.

NCEast
03-18-2011, 01:44 PM
Correct, she did have Crohn's.

I have a friend with Crohns disease and her digestive motility is very, very fast. Much quicker than the typical 4-6 hours. I don't know how this may play into the prosecution's case, if at all, but I know first hand what this disease does to my friend.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 01:46 PM
Why is it highly unlikley NC couldn't have gotten sick and vomited enough to clear out her stomach (before ever being strangled)?

Just because it took YOU a certain amount of vomiting to clear YOUR stomach, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.

Because the evidence doesn't suggest it. She had an undigested onion in her stomach. There has been plenty of discussion on here that onion takes longer to digest than other foods. So she threw up EVERYTHING else except the one piece of food that would have taken longer to digest? I think the ME's testimony really hurt the prosecutions case. Now we have to believe she threw up (everything except for the onion of course) in order for her to have been murdered when they think she was. I think it is highly likely she died in the morning time (either by BC or someone else).

My guess is the voip calls are going to be the same way. In my opinion, they are going to show how it could have been done but offer absolutely no evidence to show that it was actually done.

This case is falling apart.

NCEast
03-18-2011, 01:46 PM
I'm not sure... but good question/statement.

One of the symptoms of a concussion is vomiting. If he did hit her hard enough for her to sustain a concussion pretty soon after she returned home, she could have begun vomiting before she was strangled.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 01:47 PM
iMO, the defense steered clear of vomiting because it was so far fetched. They knew they won that argument and , imo, Cummings looked desperate suggesting it..
If they had some proof (can't imagine what it would be, cause Butts said he would have no way of knowing that), why did Cummings later say perhaps she ate at 7 and he killed her at 1AM? He waffled and showed the jury he has no confidence in his own theory.

Exactly. We already know she drank after 7:00 PM. I'm assuming it will be easy to prove she ate after that timeframe as well.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 01:48 PM
He could have hit her in the head concussing her, causing her to vomit at some point. Strangulation could have been a while later.

Nothing in the MEs testimony even remotely suggested her getting hit in the head.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 01:50 PM
So what time did she eat her food at the party?
There was earlier testimony, right?

What time did Mrs. Lopez get there? Since she at some of her Avocado dip, it had to be after that at a minimum. Also, wasn't it after Brad got there as well since one of them (NC I believe) was tending to the grill and BC was pushing the kids in the swing? Considering she drank well into the night, it's reasonable to assume she ate some during that time as well.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 01:51 PM
I can't believe they would just make up a possibility of a person vomiting to explain the lack of something. We will find out for sure as the case progresses. They took numerous bags of evidence out of the house. IF she did vomit, the chances of him cleaning up every bit aren't good. I didn't feel like the ME gave much of anything one way or the other. Both defense and prosecution scenarios are possible. When the lab evidence is presented, we will find out just how strong or weak the prosecution case really is.

NCEast
03-18-2011, 01:53 PM
Nothing in the MEs testimony even remotely suggested her getting hit in the head.

The DA specifically asked the ME if she had been hit in the head/face area would he have been able to determine it. The ME again referred back to the right side of her face and said he thought the blood pooled there because that was the way she was laying....however, with that and the insect infestation he said he may not have been able to see any bruising. IIRC.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 01:53 PM
Yes! He could have snuck into her room in the early morning hrs of 7/12 (well after 1am) and strangled her in there. There's certainly nothing that precludes that scenario from happening.

Absolutely that is possible. But that isn't what the prosecution seems to be indicating happened. They were pretty clear in todays testimony that they believe he ambushed her when she came home. And if he snuck into her room and strangled her there, why all the evidence about cleaning and stuff being moved in the foyer? The evidence is not matching what the prosecution is putting forward as their theory. Doesn't mean he didn't do it...but it sure adds doubt.

DogWood
03-18-2011, 01:54 PM
Now y'all have me curious - so I went to see how long it can take to digest some of the food she last ate...

avocado - 1 3/4 hrs.

tomato - 2 hrs.

onion - 3 1/4 hrs.

The rest can be found here.
http://www.unani.com/digestion_time_of_foods.htm

NCEast
03-18-2011, 01:57 PM
Anybody know if the initial search warrant(s) included the trash cans outside the house? If he cleaned up vomit or anything else (urine, feces) perhaps that evidence was collected?

dgfred
03-18-2011, 01:59 PM
One of the symptoms of a concussion is vomiting. If he did hit her hard enough for her to sustain a concussion pretty soon after she returned home, she could have begun vomiting before she was strangled.

That is exactly what I was getting at. But I didn't know if the ME could have noted it.

dgfred
03-18-2011, 02:01 PM
Absolutely that is possible. But that isn't what the prosecution seems to be indicating happened. They were pretty clear in todays testimony that they believe he ambushed her when she came home. And if he snuck into her room and strangled her there, why all the evidence about cleaning and stuff being moved in the foyer? The evidence is not matching what the prosecution is putting forward as their theory. Doesn't mean he didn't do it...but it sure adds doubt.

Wouldn't the defense know from discovery if the prosecution had any evidence of vomit collected or testing done on items that it may have been on?

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 02:01 PM
Anybody know if the initial search warrant(s) included the trash cans outside the house? If he cleaned up vomit or anything else (urine, feces) perhaps that evidence was collected?

Definitely possible but I don't know that he would have put something like that in his own garbage. It would be more likely that he would have dumped it someplace else on one of his trips away from the house that day. A little extra clean-up material might have also been dumped elsewhere when he took the girls to go out and look for Nancy.

water_dancing
03-18-2011, 02:06 PM
For all we know she was killed at 4AM when he said Katie woke up?
The state obviously wanted to say around midnight when she came home. They should have anticipated the stomach contents issue and given the jury a much bigger window to consider all along. The defense had a much more believable argument on this portion of the evidence.

Given the information presented today, I would say, if BC did it, 4AM is much more likely. If she had vomited either on her own or from being strangled, it would have cleared the food from her system and any alcohol from her stomach but not the alcohol that was already in her blood.

However, the peak absorption for alcohol is generally recognized as b/w 30-45 minutes. It takes the body 1 hour to metabolize 5 oz of wine or 12oz of beer.

So if she was strangled @midnight when she walked in the door and vomited, it would have only cleared the alcohol she consumed after 11:15-11:30 +/-. JA testified that she and NC both had wine at 5PM, and others noted NC consumed both beer and wine at the party. Others also testified that she was "buzzed" at the party which would indicate a more than marginal BAC.

For her alcohol level to be were the ME found it, it would seem that her body would have needed a longer time to metabolize it unless she stopped drinking at 9-10PM if not earlier. Her body would not have been metabolizing the alcohol after she was killed.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 02:12 PM
Absolutely that is possible. But that isn't what the prosecution seems to be indicating happened. They were pretty clear in todays testimony that they believe he ambushed her when she came home. And if he snuck into her room and strangled her there, why all the evidence about cleaning and stuff being moved in the foyer? The evidence is not matching what the prosecution is putting forward as their theory. Doesn't mean he didn't do it...but it sure adds doubt.
With evidence presented SO FAR...I think the prosecution anticipated the defense would zero in on the stomach content. We KNOW she ate/drank a fair amount at the party.We know also that the stomach contents were limited at the time of autopsy. We know that onion was present and that it takes somewhat longer for onion to digest. IMO, the prosecution was covering all bases to suggest vomiting MAY have happened.
And another thing...
IF Nancy went running and was assaulted/strangled by a stranger/boyfriend/bigfoot, WHY were there no ligature marks on her neck? Unless it WAS bigfoot, most people planning an assault usually plan on taking/using a weapon/instrument.
I believe Cummings made a point of asking how long it takes to strangle someone to pass out/die because Brad used his arm instead of a ligature. Might have been a heat of passion assault to begin with in the foyer, but he had MINUTES to change his mind before she died.

To clarify: Anyone lurking on a running trail to ambush someone.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 02:13 PM
Wouldn't the defense know from discovery if the prosecution had any evidence of vomit collected or testing done on items that it may have been on?
Brad washed her dress.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 02:15 PM
Given the information presented today, I would say, if BC did it, 4AM is much more likely. If she had vomited either on her own or from being strangled, it would have cleared the food from her system and any alcohol from her stomach but not the alcohol that was already in her blood.

However, the peak absorption for alcohol is generally recognized as b/w 30-45 minutes. It takes the body 1 hour to metabolize 5 oz of wine or 12oz of beer.

So if she was strangled @midnight when she walked in the door and vomited, it would have only cleared the alcohol she consumed after 11:15-11:30 +/-. JA testified that she and NC both had wine at 5PM, and others noted NC consumed both beer and wine at the party. Others also testified that she was "buzzed" at the party which would indicate a more than marginal BAC.

For her alcohol level to be were the ME found it, it would seem that her body would have needed a longer time to metabolize it unless she stopped drinking at 9-10PM if not earlier. Her body would not have been metabolizing the alcohol after she was killed.

That part of his testimony wasn't clear to me. He made a point to explain that he did not test her blood because there wasn't enough left. He tested fluid which I'm guessing would not be the same as BAC. He indicated that he might expect to find a higher level but I wasn't sure if the question was specific to BAC or to the fluid he tested.

dgfred
03-18-2011, 02:17 PM
I wanted to ask more on the dress... why/how did he have time to wash it when it can be seen in that photo? What was his excuse for washing it?

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 02:18 PM
Now y'all have me curious - so I went to see how long it can take to digest some of the food she last ate...

avocado - 1 3/4 hrs.

tomato - 2 hrs.

onion - 3 1/4 hrs.

The rest can be found here.
http://www.unani.com/digestion_time_of_foods.htm

Based on this, the onion should not have been in her stomach if she died after 7 a.m.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 02:20 PM
I wanted to ask more on the dress... why/how did he have time to wash it when it can be seen in that photo? What was his excuse for washing it?

When they came to look for her on the 12th, they were looking for a black dress. It wasn't until later that others remembered that it was a green dress. Brad gave the police the green dress after he had washed it. I don't know what day he gave it to them.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 02:21 PM
Based on this, the onion should not have been in her stomach if she died after 7 a.m.
Wish we knew what time she ate the onion.

dgfred
03-18-2011, 02:22 PM
I bet he crapped his pants when he saw it in the back of the hampers.

There is zero excuse (innocent) for washing it... :innocent: NOT.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 02:24 PM
Wish we knew what time she ate the onion.

I know that it was in Donna Lopez's testimony but I don't know where in the testimony she talked about it.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 02:24 PM
The DA specifically asked the ME if she had been hit in the head/face area would he have been able to determine it. The ME again referred back to the right side of her face and said he thought the blood pooled there because that was the way she was laying....however, with that and the insect infestation he said he may not have been able to see any bruising. IIRC.

Right...so more hypotheticals (such as vomiting).

dgfred
03-18-2011, 02:25 PM
Since the dress was in the hamper, and assuming he didn't see it there or put it there himself... maybe she was killed in the middle of the night- like 4am after changing clothes.


But then why would he have washed it???

caryresident
03-18-2011, 02:25 PM
Wish we knew what time she ate the onion.



I think Donna Lopez said what time she saw her eating her dip because Nancy kept going back and forth to the front to look out the window to see if the lights were off at her house. I will see if I can find it in her testimony.

DogWood
03-18-2011, 02:26 PM
Wish we knew what time she ate the onion.

Based on what Ms. L said, she arrived between 6-6:30 and they (she and Nancy) sat down to visit about an hour later. IIRC, 7:30 to 7:45. She said she saw her eat the salad she had made and the lemon cake.

I'll have to go listen again to be sure.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 02:27 PM
I bet he crapped his pants when he saw it in the back of the hampers.

There is zero excuse (innocent) for washing it... :innocent: NOT.

From a defense perspective, he did not know that she wore the green dress to the party. He stated it was a black dress. He did ALL the laundry. His reason is because he knew that Nancy was mad about the condition of the house and he was trying to make her happy. BUT, he did say originally that Nancy was the one that started the laundry and noticed that they needed detergent and he went back to the store. Later he said he was doing the laundry and ran out so went to get more.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 02:28 PM
With evidence presented SO FAR...I think the prosecution anticipated the defense would zero in on the stomach content. We KNOW she ate/drank a fair amount at the party.We know also that the stomach contents were limited at the time of autopsy. We know that onion was present and that it takes somewhat longer for onion to digest. IMO, the prosecution was covering all bases to suggest vomiting MAY have happened.
And another thing...
IF Nancy went running and was assaulted/strangled by a stranger/boyfriend/bigfoot, WHY were there no ligature marks on her neck? Unless it WAS bigfoot, most people planning an assault usually plan on taking/using a weapon/instrument.
I believe Cummings made a point of asking how long it takes to strangle someone to pass out/die because Brad used his arm instead of a ligature. Might have been a heat of passion assault to begin with in the foyer, but he had MINUTES to change his mind before she died.

To clarify: Anyone lurking on a running trail to ambush someone.

Huh? Not if the assault wasn't planned. If someone saw someone jogging by and decided to grab them, that wouldn't have been planned. If it wasn't BC, it wasn't a planned murder.

dgfred
03-18-2011, 02:28 PM
I think Donna Lopez said what time she saw her eating her dip because Nancy kept going back and forth to the front to look out the window to see if the lights were off at her house. I will see if I can find it in her testimony.

So she didn't want to go home if the lights were on?

TOD is going to be tuff to figure.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 02:32 PM
I can't believe we freaking missed the testimony this morning. This is so frustrating. According to the ABC report, the call to BCs phone occurred 1 minute before he was seen entering the HT store the second time. The records confirmed it was made from the home landline. The detective also conceded that there was no way Brad could have made that call from home and driven to the HT in less than 1 minute.

This has always been the testimony I have been waiting on. I'm guessing the prosecution is going to try and show he made the call some other way. But I certainly hope it's not another hypothetical situation where he could have done this...and that they can actually prove it. If not, BC should not be convicted.

But the important part is that the call came from the home landline.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 02:33 PM
I wanted to ask more on the dress... why/how did he have time to wash it when it can be seen in that photo? What was his excuse for washing it?

It was probably already washed at that point. That was probably a basket of clean clothes that needed to be folded/put away.

NCEast
03-18-2011, 02:38 PM
Right...so more hypotheticals (such as vomiting).

Most of the trial and what's being said on this forum is hypothetical. Nothing wrong with trying to shake things out. The prosecution's handling of the ME was so weak I can think of several issues and questions that should have been covered in depth. Or simply covered. That's pretty much what we're doing now--thinking of various aspects of the testimony that either weren't explored deeply enough or not covered at all.

dgfred
03-18-2011, 02:39 PM
It was probably already washed at that point. That was probably a basket of clean clothes that needed to be folded/put away.

Looks more like dirty ones to me but you may be right.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 02:44 PM
Huh? Not if the assault wasn't planned. If someone saw someone jogging by and decided to grab them, that wouldn't have been planned. If it wasn't BC, it wasn't a planned murder.

Dude.

Look at the WHOLE picture. :)

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 02:45 PM
It was probably already washed at that point. That was probably a basket of clean clothes that needed to be folded/put away.

It's possible but not probable since there was another basket on top of it. I can't think of any reason for someone to put a laundry basket on top of clean clothes unless they really LOVE to iron.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 02:45 PM
A little more about what happened in court this morning.

Judge scolds lawyer in Cooper trial
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8020641


Thanks DogWood. So the judge did verbally tell the jury to disregard Kurtz's accusation of changing stories.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 02:49 PM
From a defense perspective, he did not know that she wore the green dress to the party. He stated it was a black dress. He did ALL the laundry. His reason is because he knew that Nancy was mad about the condition of the house and he was trying to make her happy. BUT, he did say originally that Nancy was the one that started the laundry and noticed that they needed detergent and he went back to the store. Later he said he was doing the laundry and ran out so went to get more.

As I recall from testimony we have seen, Brad told LE the dress was blue, he told D Duncan the dress was black when he went across the street. It is in the cross of D. Duncan.

CyberPro
03-18-2011, 02:50 PM
Cummings delivery drives me crazy. He sounds like he's on the left end of the intelligence bell curve with that slowwwww voice and those long hesitations.

This might be just his style, but it might be camoflage too. Never underestimate a country boy. That slow drawl might be to throw someone off guard about how much smarter they are, then before they know it they have been backed into a tight corner. Given BC's apparent appreciation for his own intelligence... this would be a perfect weapon for him.

dgfred
03-18-2011, 02:50 PM
It's possible but not probable since there was another basket on top of it. I can't think of any reason for someone to put a laundry basket on top of clean clothes unless they really LOVE to iron.

Wouldn't it seem if she had time to change clothes after the party she wasn't killed immediately upon returning? BC wouldn't have thrown her dress in the hamper IMO, and he would have known it was green, and it wouldn't have been there when the police showed up. 4am is looking more and more likely if so IMO.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 02:53 PM
Wish we knew what time she ate the onion.

Based on the digestion times and the ME identifying it in her stomach, and if you believe Brad that she went running at 7am - she had to have ate onion sometime after 3 am at the earliest. Maybe she had an onion sandwich with her morning coffee (tongue firmly in cheek)..:crazy:

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 02:54 PM
Dude.

Look at the WHOLE picture. :)

I am looking at the whole picture, without any pre-conceived decision about his guilt. If he didn't originate the call from the landline to his cell phone, then he didn't kill her.

CyberPro
03-18-2011, 02:55 PM
Yeah, he just screwed up. Unless he can show Nancy didn't eat after 7:00 PM, he has to show that Nancy vomited. Or her body would have had food in her stomach if she was killed when she got home. So the lack of alcohol in her system and the lack of food would indicate she wasn't killed when she got home.

I feel sure there will be testimony about what she had to eat or drink at the party. I know they found what could be onion. Onion takes a long time to digest, but I know of at least one case in NC where the victim ate chicken and rice for dinner, and was killed at least 6 hours after eating it, but there was still rice in the stomach. This caused a lot of consternation during the trial, because rice usually digrests very quickly. No explaination was ever accepted about why it had not digested, but it tended to point to him having been killed earlier than believed, which could have implicated his wife in the murder.

DogWood
03-18-2011, 02:55 PM
Thanks DogWood. So the judge did verbally tell the jury to disregard Kurtz's accusation of changing stories.

YW!

I can almost see the look on his face when Kurtz said that.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 02:55 PM
Based on the digestion times and the ME identifying it in her stomach, and if you believe Brad that she went running at 7am - she had to have ate onion sometime after 3 am at the earliest. Maybe she had an onion sandwich with her morning coffee (tongue firmly in cheek)..:crazy:

Well...there's your barf evidence.

:rocker:

dgfred
03-18-2011, 02:56 PM
This might be just his style, but it might be camoflage too. Never underestimate a country boy. That slow drawl might be to throw someone off guard about how much smarter they are, then before they know it they have been backed into a tight corner. Given BC's apparent appreciation for his own intelligence... this would be a perfect weapon for him.

Yeah, playing dumb sure works some of the time. But I'd rather have a 'cracker-jack', 'sharp as a tack' prosecutor any day to convict. Maybe they are trying to lure BC into testifying.

SleuthinNC
03-18-2011, 02:58 PM
Huh? Not if the assault wasn't planned. If someone saw someone jogging by and decided to grab them, that wouldn't have been planned. If it wasn't BC, it wasn't a planned murder.

I wouldn't agree that BC was the only person who could have planned to murder NC. Most likely? Maybe? But I would not say absolutely.

DogWood
03-18-2011, 02:59 PM
Well...there's your barf evidence.

:rocker:

:floorlaugh:

Good one!

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 02:59 PM
Wouldn't it seem if she had time to change clothes after the party she wasn't killed immediately upon returning? BC wouldn't have thrown her dress in the hamper IMO, and he would have known it was green, and it wouldn't have been there when the police showed up. 4am is looking more and more likely if so IMO.

That's assuming that she did change clothes. I'm not sure that I can assume that she did or didn't. Since all the laundry was washed, all evidence of what she did with her clothes the night before is gone except that one picture showing the dress sticking out under that laundry basket.

dgfred
03-18-2011, 03:01 PM
That's assuming that she did change clothes. I'm not sure that I can assume that she did or didn't. Since all the laundry was washed, all evidence of what she did with her clothes the night before is gone except that one picture showing the dress sticking out under that laundry basket.

But why (if he killed her when she walked in the door) would the dress be thrown in the hamper? He wouldn't have done that while re-dressing her, and he wouldn't have just left it there IMO.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 03:03 PM
Wouldn't it seem if she had time to change clothes after the party she wasn't killed immediately upon returning? BC wouldn't have thrown her dress in the hamper IMO, and he would have known it was green, and it wouldn't have been there when the police showed up. 4am is looking more and more likely if so IMO.

Why do you say he wouldn't throw it the hamper?

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 03:04 PM
I feel sure there will be testimony about what she had to eat or drink at the party. I know they found what could be onion. Onion takes a long time to digest, but I know of at least one case in NC where the victim ate chicken and rice for dinner, and was killed at least 6 hours after eating it, but there was still rice in the stomach. This caused a lot of consternation during the trial, because rice usually digrests very quickly. No explaination was ever accepted about why it had not digested, but it tended to point to him having been killed earlier than believed, which could have implicated his wife in the murder.

It looks like raw onions are a lot harder to digest than cooked onions. These would have been raw being in a salad or dip.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 03:05 PM
But why (if he killed her when she walked in the door) would the dress be thrown in the hamper? He wouldn't have done that while re-dressing her, and he wouldn't have just left it there IMO.

He couldn't get rid of it. He had no way of knowing who remembered the dress and worse yet, if anyone had taken a picture at the party. He couldn't hide it and risk having it found leading to definite suspicion. He had to take his chances on hiding it without looking like he was hiding it, if you go on the possibility that he killed Nancy.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 03:06 PM
Why do you say he wouldn't throw it the hamper?

Because it would have been evidence? And the suggestion is he cleaned it to hide bodily fluids from the murder. So I imagine he would have done something with it while cleaning up the crime scene instead of throwing it in a dirty clothes hamper.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 03:08 PM
Since the dress was in the hamper, and assuming he didn't see it there or put it there himself... maybe she was killed in the middle of the night- like 4am after changing clothes.


But then why would he have washed it???

To cover the fact it wasn't stained at the party? Brad seems to be the only one who knew her dress was stained and wet at the party...

dgfred
03-18-2011, 03:08 PM
Why do you say he wouldn't throw it the hamper?

Because.... ncsu answered already.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 03:09 PM
Because it would have been evidence? And the suggestion is he cleaned it to hide bodily fluids from the murder. So I imagine he would have done something with it while cleaning up the crime scene instead of throwing it in a dirty clothes hamper.
IIRC, Brad DID produce it for CPD, and it had been washed.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 03:12 PM
Well...there's your barf evidence.

:rocker:

Another hypothetical since I am very good at them - what if vomit was found in the jogging bra Nancy was found in or on the underside of the key table in the foyer or even in the vase where the bamboo sticks were located on Friday ?

dgfred
03-18-2011, 03:14 PM
To cover the fact it wasn't stained at the party? Brad seems to be the only one who knew her dress was stained and wet at the party...

I'm missing your point... but I don't know anything about the 'stained and wet' part.

So did he claim to wash it because it was stained and wet from the party?

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 03:14 PM
Another hypothetical since I am very good at them - what if vomit was found in the jogging bra Nancy was found in or on the underside of the key table in the foyer or even in the vase where the bamboo sticks were located on Friday ?
Any crime lab peeps on the states witness list?

RaleighNC
03-18-2011, 03:16 PM
I am willing to bet that she could have vomited while struggling / being strangled. The trachea is in front of the esophagus - so you can cut off airflow (and carotid arterial flow) without closing the esophagus.

But if that happened and she had eaten and drunk as much as is stated - and there was thrashing around - you'd think there would have been something on the walls that you could not get out. (unless they had really good scrubbable paint there) vomit seems to stain ANYTHING it comes in contact with.

And not to be gross - but when people die - many sphincters that usually hold things in, relax. Death is usually pretty messy.

I can't imagine BC had enough cleaning skills to perfectly sanitize that entire area.

That would be my smoking gun - vomit in the foyer.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 03:17 PM
Because it would have been evidence? And the suggestion is he cleaned it to hide bodily fluids from the murder. So I imagine he would have done something with it while cleaning up the crime scene instead of throwing it in a dirty clothes hamper.

In thinking it through I think that you are right that the dress was already washed at that point. I think he put the other basket on top to try to keep it from being noticed. If it had been identified on Saturday he would have been able to say that he had washed a load of clothes and didn't realize that was the dress she had worn. He did not want it known that the first thing he did on Saturday morning was to wash that dress. My guess. If he's guilty.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 03:18 PM
I'm missing your point... but I don't know anything about the 'stained and wet' part.

So did he claim to wash it because it was stained and wet from the party?


In Brads depositions he claimed that when he arrived at the party, Nancy was fussing with her dress and trying to clean a stain out of it that resulted from her spilling something on it. He said it was stained and wet. But of the witnesses asked during this trial, none saw either a stain or a wet dress, or any comment by Nancy that she had spilled something on it.

I suspect the stain and wet story is just that, a Brad story.

DogWood
03-18-2011, 03:19 PM
This was updated 3 minutes ago.

Trial testimony focuses phone call to Brad Cooper
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9292518/

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 03:20 PM
Any crime lab peeps on the states witness list?

Dunno, I have not really seen a witness list. Someone is going to have to testify about the rape kit and swab samples collected from Nancy's body I would suspect.

dgfred
03-18-2011, 03:21 PM
In thinking it through I think that you are right that the dress was already washed at that point. I think he put the other basket on top to try to keep it from being noticed. If it had been identified on Saturday he would have been able to say that he had washed a load of clothes and didn't realize that was the dress she had worn. He did not want it known that the first thing he did on Saturday morning was to wash that dress. My guess. If he's guilty.

But why would he care if was seen or found... if he had already washed it?

He didn't mind handing it over after washed anyway.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 03:21 PM
IIRC, Brad DID produce it for CPD, and it had been washed.

You missed the point. I know he washed it. You asked why he wouldn't throw it in the hamper. If he washed it because there was evidence on it, then he knew it was evidence and wouldn't have just thrown it in the hamper with the other dirty clothes....he would have thrown it in the washer.

ncsu95
03-18-2011, 03:22 PM
Another hypothetical since I am very good at them - what if vomit was found in the jogging bra Nancy was found in or on the underside of the key table in the foyer or even in the vase where the bamboo sticks were located on Friday ?

Then it would be solid evidence to back up the prosecutions theory.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 03:24 PM
Does anyone else wonder about Butts" testimony about the three marks on the side of her neck ? He said they were insect infested and that insects will infest in areas where the skin has been damaged.

snowshuze
03-18-2011, 03:24 PM
Dunno, I have not really seen a witness list. Someone is going to have to testify about the rape kit and swab samples collected from Nancy's body I would suspect.
Guess it's just one of those things we'll just have to sit tight and see.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 03:28 PM
But why would he care if was seen or found... if he had already washed it?

He didn't mind handing it over after washed anyway.

I'm trying to think like a guilty person. I wouldn't want to turn it over any sooner than I had to. I would have put it exactly like it was seen. If someone identifies it, it was already washed so hopefully it wouldn't have anything left on it. If they didn't notice, I'd be washing it again! At some point it ended up laying over a chair in the dining room. That's when Diana Duncan noticed it and said, "That's the dress." So at some point it went from the basket to the back of the chair.

raisincharlie
03-18-2011, 03:34 PM
Guess it's just one of those things we'll just have to sit tight and see.

Gotta be someone - rape kit, DNA swabs from Nancy, her fingernail clippings and so on. Someone will be up there saying something. Hopefully they aren't undercover :D

I recall from the search warrant inventories, swabs from the cars and don't forget the "green vegetable matter" sample...could it be ?

ETA - one other thing - remember the hair from the wheel well of the car ?

Lots to talk about.

water_dancing
03-18-2011, 03:50 PM
I'm trying to think like a guilty person. I wouldn't want to turn it over any sooner than I had to. I would have put it exactly like it was seen. If someone identifies it, it was already washed so hopefully it wouldn't have anything left on it. If they didn't notice, I'd be washing it again! At some point it ended up laying over a chair in the dining room. That's when Diana Duncan noticed it and said, "That's the dress." So at some point it went from the basket to the back of the chair.

This is where I'm confused. Are we sure it's the same dress in the basket that she wore to the party?

So, it is in the picture on 7/12/08 in the MBR in a basket (clean??).
Then on 7/13 or 7/14, BC gives it to the police, washed.
Also, on 7/14 or 7/15, DD sees it draped over a chair.

Does anyone know which was 1st, BC giving the dress to the CPD or DD seeing the dress? It would seem once BC gave them the dress, it would be taken for evidence. It would also seem that when DD saw the dress, she would immediately alerted the police and then BC would not have opportunity to give it to them as it would have been taken for evidence. Or is DD finding it the reason he handed it over? Or did the CPD not take it for evidence immediately?

DogWood
03-18-2011, 03:52 PM
I'm trying to think like a guilty person. I wouldn't want to turn it over any sooner than I had to. I would have put it exactly like it was seen. If someone identifies it, it was already washed so hopefully it wouldn't have anything left on it. If they didn't notice, I'd be washing it again! At some point it ended up laying over a chair in the dining room. That's when Diana Duncan noticed it and said, "That's the dress." So at some point it went from the basket to the back of the chair.

I'll go on the record and say that the photo the defense keeps showing of the dress in the basket sure looks a lot more teal green then the dress shown in court. The one shown in court looks like a seafoam green to me. Could be the camera/lighting the photo was taken with/in I guess.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 03:58 PM
This is where I'm confused. Are we sure it's the same dress in the basket that she wore to the party?

So, it is in the picture on 7/12/08 in the MBR in a basket (clean??).
Then on 7/13 or 7/14, BC gives it to the police, washed.
Also, on 7/14 or 7/15, DD sees it draped over a chair.

Does anyone know which was 1st, BC giving the dress to the CPD or DD seeing the dress? It would seem once BC gave them the dress, it would be taken for evidence. It would also seem that when DD saw the dress, she would immediately alerted the police and then BC would not have opportunity to give it to them as it would have been taken for evidence. Or is DD finding it the reason he handed it over? Or did the CPD not take it for evidence immediately?

The picture of the basket was taken on the 12th, Saturday. Don't know if it was clean but guessing it was since laundry at 6 a.m. seemed to be pretty important.

Donna D. was asked to take the girls to school on Tuesday, the 15th (I think!) I don't know what day Brad gave the dress to CPD but I'm sure it was never given back to him.

otto
03-18-2011, 04:02 PM
With evidence presented SO FAR...I think the prosecution anticipated the defense would zero in on the stomach content. We KNOW she ate/drank a fair amount at the party.We know also that the stomach contents were limited at the time of autopsy. We know that onion was present and that it takes somewhat longer for onion to digest. IMO, the prosecution was covering all bases to suggest vomiting MAY have happened.
And another thing...
IF Nancy went running and was assaulted/strangled by a stranger/boyfriend/bigfoot, WHY were there no ligature marks on her neck? Unless it WAS bigfoot, most people planning an assault usually plan on taking/using a weapon/instrument.
I believe Cummings made a point of asking how long it takes to strangle someone to pass out/die because Brad used his arm instead of a ligature. Might have been a heat of passion assault to begin with in the foyer, but he had MINUTES to change his mind before she died.

To clarify: Anyone lurking on a running trail to ambush someone.

It's my impression that if the onion remained in the stomach, and the other food was gone, then it must have been digested. If she vomited, the onion wouldn't have been left behind. Also, I was wondering if the question about how long it takes to strangle someone was to make the pre-meditation argument. If the ME had said 5 minutes, then the prosecution could argue that the accused had 4.5 minutes to change his mind. I think the ME said that time for stangulation would depend on the individual circumstances, so it wasn't clearly suggested that there for 4.5 minutes to reconsider the decision to murder.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 04:03 PM
I'll go on the record and say that the photo the defense keeps showing of the dress in the basket sure looks a lot more teal green then the dress shown in court. The one shown in court looks like a seafoam green to me. Could be the camera/lighting the photo was taken with/in I guess.

I saved the picture to my computer and blew it up to 400%. It is dark in that room so it's hard to tell with the color. I couldn't see the black pattern on it but it is kind of blurry at 400%. I would think that CPD or the DA office have access to photo experts that could enhance the picture and tell for sure.

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 04:05 PM
RE the dress:

Brad bought himself time by trying to assert that the dress was black, when he obviously knew exactly which dress it was.

He washed the dress at some point that morning or day. When were the photos taken? Late afternoon of 7/12? He was cleaning and doing laundry all morning long, from at least 7am to when he left to go 'look' for Nancy (around 1pm?). So a minimum of 6 hrs to do laundry, and possibly a couple more hours.

For whatever reason Brad did not want to hand over the dress when asked. Nor did he want anyone to identify the dress that evening when he asked DD to help him look for 'the black dress.'

Brad himself contacted LE to let them know he found the dress...this was the day after they already did the K9 search using the shoe he gave them.

LaLaw2000
03-18-2011, 04:07 PM
Cummings not only sounds 'slow,' in person I noticed he looks perpetually confused with the slack jaw look on his face, mouth hanging open, the glasses pushed down his nose, and the lack of a firm jawline. Combined with his voice and hesitations, he could put anyone to sleep, confuse anyone, and bore anyone to tears. I think he was a poor choice to present this case.

I was wondering when someone would mention this.

I have friends (and a family member at Ft. Bragg) in North Carolina and love the whole state! BUT, I have run into no one who speaks like this. If I were a juror, I would actually dread listening to this man. I am from the South, and we do not speak this slowly. I keep wanting him to go ahead and spit out what he is trying to say.

I am on the side of the prosecution in that I do believe BC killed Nancy, BUT I am embarrassed for them because of this man. I was especially taken aback this morning when he was questioning the ME. He simply could not seem to put his questions into words that would make it clear.

I tried to watch a pretrial hearing (the one with really bad sound), and tried to follow the line of reasoning and simply could not.

He does seem to make himself seem so woefully unprepared. Someone else really does need to take over, IMO. I am sure he is a very nice man, but I can hardly bear to listen to him.

JMO

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 04:11 PM
I think Brad decided the dress was clean and he was 'ready' to hand it over to LE. So he draped the dress over the chair in the DR, to have to ready to hand off to LE.

Before he actually handed it to LE, DD was over, in the house, and saw the dress on the chair.

That's the assumption I'm going with at this point.

caryresident
03-18-2011, 04:12 PM
Gotta be someone - rape kit, DNA swabs from Nancy, her fingernail clippings and so on. Someone will be up there saying something. Hopefully they aren't undercover :D

I recall from the search warrant inventories, swabs from the cars and don't forget the "green vegetable matter" sample...could it be ?

ETA - one other thing - remember the hair from the wheel well of the car ?

Lots to talk about.


RC - where was the green vegetable matter - I forgot. In the car or house? Could be guacamole salad?

LaLaw2000
03-18-2011, 04:13 PM
On this lactic (sp.) acid thing.............I am wondering if the stomach does produce even more of it after having vomited. I do know that vomiting does upset the balance of stomach acids and irritates the lining of the stomach. Such a test for increased lactic acid might have been very useless because of the degree of decomposition. I do have to wonder what detailed answer the prosecutor was trying to elicit from the ME on this.

MOO

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 04:15 PM
I would actually dread listening to this man. I am from the South, and we do not speak this slowly. I keep wanting him to go ahead and spit out what he is trying to say.

I am on the side of the prosecution in that I do believe BC killed Nancy, BUT I am embarrassed for them because of this man. I was especially taken aback this morning when he was questioning the ME. He simply could not seem to put his questions into words that would make it clear.

That sums it up quite nicely, LaLaw.

I do dread listening to him and I'm not on the jury. He is not an asset to this case when he's presenting. I'm frankly worried. I think the prosecution has enough of an uphill battle with this case and, IMHO, Cummings is failing at presenting and as a result is giving the defense the edge. I don't think it's just his speech, it appears his mind works slowwwwly too. It's like he's still on Daylight Standard Time and the rest of the world has moved forward an hour!

DogWood
03-18-2011, 04:15 PM
I think Brad decided the dress was clean and he was 'ready' to hand it over to LE. So he draped the dress over the chair in the DR, to have to ready to hand off to LE.

Before he actually handed it to LE, DD was over, in the house, and saw the dress on the chair.

That's the assumption I'm going with at this point.

Maybe that's why it went from teal green to seafoam green - he washed it tons of times in hot water. lol :D

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 04:16 PM
where was the green vegetable matter

In the car. HIS car.

Cheyenne130
03-18-2011, 04:20 PM
RE the dress:

Brad bought himself time by trying to assert that the dress was black, when he obviously knew exactly which dress it was.

He washed the dress at some point that morning or day. When were the photos taken? Late afternoon of 7/12? He was cleaning and doing laundry all morning long, from at least 7am to when he left to go 'look' for Nancy (around 1pm?). So a minimum of 6 hrs to do laundry, and possibly a couple more hours.

For whatever reason Brad did not want to hand over the dress when asked. Nor did he want anyone to identify the dress that evening when he asked DD to help him look for 'the black dress.'

Brad himself contacted LE to let them know he found the dress...this was the day after they already did the K9 search using the shoe he gave them.

Does this mean that Brad called CPD on Sunday to let them know he had the dress but it was still at the house for Diana Duncan to see it on Tuesday?

RaleighNC
03-18-2011, 04:30 PM
oh - one bout of vomiting doesn't necessarily clear the stomach of all it's contents (ask me how i know) - I would more likely believe she vomited once and then was killed before she could clear out the "rest".

jumpstreet
03-18-2011, 04:42 PM
Another hypothetical since I am very good at them - what if vomit was found in the jogging bra Nancy was found in or on the underside of the key table in the foyer or even in the vase where the bamboo sticks were located on Friday ?


Then it would be solid evidence to back up the prosecutions theory.

I would assume the defense would just assert that any found on the bra could have gotten there at the time of assault while on the jog.

Any found in the house would have to be conclusive as (a) hers, and (b) recent. If so, then still wouldn't disprove that she got a little sick when she came home (while everyone was asleep), cleaned it up a bit herself, then went to bed.

I know it was just hypothetical... and it wouldn't hurt the prosecutions case... but certainly wouldn't nail it home either (imo).

CyberPro
03-18-2011, 04:44 PM
I can't imagine BC had enough cleaning skills to perfectly sanitize that entire area.

That would be my smoking gun - vomit in the foyer.

I just finished listening to the ME testimony. I noted a couple of things that were pointed out that I thought were significant.

1. State referring to how she might have been strangled asked if she might have been strangled "...specifically with a piece of wire." ?

2. From previous testimony we have heard about BC doing the famous imitation of Mr. Clean, and admiting to using "warm water and vinegar" - perhaps to mask the odor and acidity of vomitus?

3. State asked the ME if someone were strangled how long to lose consiousness, and how long until death + possible missing head injuries "if there was no break in the skin." or were in the area that has much insect damage. Couple this with the missing sticks. Perhaps she was choked until she passed out, maybe with a little head bumping on the foyer floor. She comes to later and becoming nauseated vomits in the vase, BC hears her and returns to complete the job.

I know, a bit gross and no evidence for it yet, but I am trying to connect the dots in what we know now and how it fits the puzzle.

LaLaw2000
03-18-2011, 04:45 PM
I am disappointed in the way the trial has gone so far. What I am looking forward to is the computer forensics and if there was any hint as to whether or not the landline phone call for the juice was programmed.

The State simply has to have much more evidence than we have seen so far.

JMO

SleuthyGal
03-18-2011, 04:49 PM
I'm disappointed too.

They need to put some 'aha!' evidence on and they haven't yet. There are small snippets of possibility that were hinted at, but nothing big yet.

The problem is that many people have a short attention span these days and you have to hit 'em hard with something compelling. All of this 'well he could have' is fine, I suppose, but no one can convict on what might be. They need something more definitive and it hasn't come up yet and they're heading into week #3.