Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #20 [Archive] - Page 2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 06:22 PM

I still have a problem with
A--the amount of time between leaving home and being called by LE
B--going to Carey's last when he was headed out the door to check there. BC put it last on his list of places he checked.
C--not calling the hospital at all. This is the 1st place he should have called IMO, especially since she had no ID.
D--not accepting help from JA for the girls so he could go to remote areas NC might have jogged
E--driving streets and parking lots? I know...no one else would have helped an injured jogger if they saw her. So did BC think people would drive or jog past someone who needed help?:bang:

C is a real kicker for me given that Nancy suffered from Crohn's. Brad was not blind to the implications of this, He made a good argument of it to keep his kids away from Nancy's sister. I have to question why JA had enough sense to call Wake Med but not the husband. It is unfathomable IMO.

Skittles

08-15-2008, 06:29 PM

Heck he could have stopped by the hospital on his way to Lifetime Fitness. It's at the Tryon/Kildaire intersection and is about 1/2 mile from Carey Clark's.

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 06:33 PM

Heck he could have stopped by the hospital on his way to Lifetime Fitness. It's at the Tryon/Kildaire intersection and is about 1/2 mile from Carey Clark's.

<THUD>

You local folks are certainly an asset :clap::clap::clap: - thanks for the info Skittles - I sure did not know there was a hospital in the immediate area - holy cow.

fran

08-15-2008, 06:37 PM

I think a phone call would have worked as well Mt3K - and the looking for Nancy part - I question what he thought he could see of the running trails from a vehicle to begin with. Just trying to be logical - I don't see how he could have believed he could tell anything about the trails. Then from reading posters responses - it does not seem that LTF is exactly on the way to Carey's house. JMO, it kind of smells funny and for some reason the trip to LTF has my hinky meter through the roof - as you say, according to Brad all Nancy took running was a stick of gum.

Ok, this is in part what has bothered me from the beginning. He had a chance for someone to take care of the kids so he could go look for Nancy. She's running on trails that go back off the road, so there's NO way he would have been able to completely check everywhere she may have been from a car.

I know, I know, he's allgedly excited and we do things not right and forget things and we all act differently. :behindbar

IF he were running all three known trails Nancy normally took, THEN I could see him be gone for over two hours. But driving the trails and checking the coffee shop, LTF, and Carey's parking lot..........naw, STILL doesn't work for me.

I believe ONE reason he left the house was because he was AFRAID Jessica was going to come by AND like others said, he didn't know she'd call 911. After all, he thought he had another 24 hours before LE would be called in. He said it himself. He thought a person had to be 'missing' 24 hours before LE would look for them.

:eek:BOOOOOO:eek:

SURPRISE! ;)

JMHO
fran

GOT 'CHA! Little slip of the tongue!?:woohoo:

fran

08-15-2008, 06:40 PM

Heck he could have stopped by the hospital on his way to Lifetime Fitness. It's at the Tryon/Kildaire intersection and is about 1/2 mile from Carey Clark's.

:woohoo:

ANOTHER!! RED FLAG ALERT!!:eek:

Just keeps pilin' up, doesn't it:yuck: Brad? ;)

Details............:bang:

JMHO
fran

fran

08-15-2008, 06:42 PM

The car wash :rolleyes:

yes indeedy, I would imagine. ;)

Gosh! Wonder IF he checked for cameras?:crazy:

:behindbarI hope not and there is!:behindbar

JMHO
fran

fran

08-15-2008, 06:49 PM

Skittles according to this link that is Scott Heider - I looked up his jersey number

http://ironman.com/assets/files/results/arizona/2007.htm

ETA He finished 244th

I'll never understand how a man could remain friends with a guy who slept with his wife. I don't care that she's now 'ex' Mrs. Heider NO HYPHEN!:confused:

Betrayal of trust is a powerful thing. UNLESS they're two of a kind?:waitasec:

Nahhhh...........nothing to indicate Mr Heider is ANYTHING like Brad.......well, other than being allegedly friends.:rolleyes:

From Mr. Heider's affidavit, it seems he may have blamed Nancy for HIS WIFE'S infidelity.......he seems pretty angry at Nancy and NOT Brad. Pretty messed up if you ask me. Wonder if there's something we don't know?:crazy:

JMHO
fran

momto3kids

08-15-2008, 06:58 PM

<THUD>

You local folks are certainly an asset :clap::clap::clap: - thanks for the info Skittles - I sure did not know there was a hospital in the immediate area - holy cow.

How did I forget to tell you there is one right on the other corner at the 4-way stop at HT?:waitasec: Yup...sure is.

We didn't hear about a call there did we? Anyone with an ounce of concern...would IMO made this the priority.

But his concern was NOT finding NC, it was covering his :behind: and tracks!!:mad:

fran

08-15-2008, 07:07 PM

How did I forget to tell you there is one right on the other corner at the 4-way stop at HT?:waitasec: Yup...sure is.

We didn't hear about a call there did we? Anyone with an ounce of concern...would IMO made this the priority.

But his concern was NOT finding NC, it was covering his :behind: and tracks!!:mad:

Like I said, I think he went by the Scott Peterson playbook, IF he did it. ;)

Scott didn't call hospitals either,........but he did have the yellow pages opened up to 'criminal defense attorneys' when the first responders went into his house. Yep, all layed out pretty on the kitchen counter.:behindbar

Another thing that shows his lack of concern, to ME, is, now that we KNOW Nancy was murdered, shouldn't he WANT the REAL KILLER caught?:eek:

With his HUGE bonus, you'd think he'd offer a reward of sumpin'. :waitasec: Or is he waiting for someone else to pick up the tab,........like for Nancy's funeral?:rolleyes:

JMHO
fran

momto3kids

08-15-2008, 07:45 PM

With his HUGE bonus, you'd think he'd offer a reward of sumpin'. :waitasec: Or is he waiting for someone else to pick up the tab,........like for Nancy's funeral?:rolleyes:

JMHO
fran

Just any amount for a reward is better than nothing! IMO if Cisco believed in their employee they would make an attempt help with a reward.

Again, ~actions speak louder than words~ BC has NOT done 1 thing to show he cares at all about NC and what happened to her. Just wait until the girls are old enough to understand all of this and they know their father didn't attend one service for their mother.

Blum called Cooper a "very private man" who does not want to mourn his wife in front of reporters. If BC had not been invited to attend Blum would have been the 1st to throw that out in everyones face.

Reporters? Does BC not realize there would be no reporters if a crime like this hadn't occured?:waitasec:

momto3kids

08-15-2008, 07:50 PM

You know Fran....I wonder how any human can be so cold, sit back and do absolutely NOTHING when this is someone they supposedly loved has been murdered? Reward would at least give us a glimmer of hope he is doing something other than trying to cover his tracks and story.

I wonder how many calls have been placed to get updates from the CPD about his wife's murder?

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 07:51 PM

Roy23

08-15-2008, 07:54 PM

I am shocked :

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1179551.html

In a motion filed late Friday, Amy Fitzhugh, Wake County Assistant District Attorney, said she will ask for another 30-day seal on the warrants, saying that their release could impact a possible defendant’s right to a fair trial.

I wonder what the deal is here. How does this help a defendant's right to a fair trial? I actually know the answer but I am ready to see what they got.

momto3kids

08-15-2008, 07:57 PM

i am shocked :

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1179551.html

in a motion filed late friday, amy fitzhugh, wake county assistant district attorney, said she will ask for another 30-day seal on the warrants, saying that their release could impact a possible defendant’s right to a fair trial.

wonderful
Now the suspense rises for Cooper!

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 08:01 PM

wonderful
Now the suspense rises for Cooper!

I am surprised by this wording relating to search warrants of the house, the cars and for Brad. Possible defendant - is this the new buzz word now?

Anderson

08-15-2008, 08:01 PM

I'll never understand how a man could remain friends with a guy who slept with his wife. I don't care that she's now 'ex' Mrs. Heider NO HYPHEN!:confused:

Betrayal of trust is a powerful thing. UNLESS they're two of a kind?:waitasec:

Nahhhh...........nothing to indicate Mr Heider is ANYTHING like Brad.......well, other than being allegedly friends.:rolleyes:

From Mr. Heider's affidavit, it seems he may have blamed Nancy for HIS WIFE'S infidelity.......he seems pretty angry at Nancy and NOT Brad. Pretty messed up if you ask me. Wonder if there's something we don't know?:crazy:

JMHO
fran

I really wonder too. JA also thought it was strange that this is where he chose to bring the kids while the investigation was taking place.

Scott may just be a very supportive friend of course, but his comments on the affidavit indicate that he is not quite so supportive of Nancy. Some of the examples seem ridiculous to me. Scott gives one example where Nancy describes a small pool as an olympic sized pool. Perhaps she was just being sarcastic:rolleyes:!! It is very difficult to know without hearing the context and her tone when she made the comment. Some people don't get sarcasm.

Just my opinions and thoughts.

Roy23

08-15-2008, 08:05 PM

I am surprised by this wording relating to search warrants of the house, the cars and for Brad. Possible defendant - is this the new buzz word now?

Is the word possible defendant a new term that will be used instead of person of interest? :confused:

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 08:06 PM

Is the word possible defendant a new term that will be used instead of person of interest? :confused:

Seems like it to me Roy. Possible defendant - certainly implies he has not been ruled out at this point.

DogWood

08-15-2008, 08:09 PM

carolinalady

08-15-2008, 08:10 PM

Just any amount for a reward is better than nothing! IMO if Cisco believed in their employee they would make an attempt help with a reward.

Again, ~actions speak louder than words~ BC has NOT done 1 thing to show he cares at all about NC and what happened to her. Just wait until the girls are old enough to understand all of this and they know their father didn't attend one service for their mother.

Blum called Cooper a "very private man" who does not want to mourn his wife in front of reporters. If BC had not been invited to attend Blum would have been the 1st to throw that out in everyones face.

Reporters? Does BC not realize there would be no reporters if a crime like this hadn't occured?:waitasec:

Bolding is mine. Many on this board have said if he made an offer of a reward it would be straight out of the "OJ Playbook."

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 08:13 PM

Talk about walking around with a bullseye on your forehead...

Thanks for the link! :)

Yep - and you are welcome. :)

Roy23

08-15-2008, 08:14 PM

Seems like it to me Roy. Possible defendant - certainly implies he has not been ruled out at this point.

Of course they say "a possible defendant" which implies nothing to Brad. It could be an acquiantance of Brad and Nancy. LE in Cary really knows how to keep secrets. They are not giving in to the media. It makes them seem competent in my eyes. I have a feeling Brad planned pretty well.

citygirl

08-15-2008, 08:14 PM

Seems like it to me Roy. Possible defendant - certainly implies he has not been ruled out at this point.

Could not be any plainer. Why are you surprised? I'm a neophyte but seems like common sense to me. What am I missing, RC?

carolinalady

08-15-2008, 08:14 PM

I am shocked :

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1179551.html

In a motion filed late Friday, Amy Fitzhugh, Wake County Assistant District Attorney, said she will ask for another 30-day seal on the warrants, saying that their release could impact a possible defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Please look at the document: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/15/3387954/willoughbymotions.pdf.

The paperworks still states that it could hamper/impede an ongoing investigation and/or etc. etc. etc.

The media seems to cherry pick portions of the motion.

ncnative

08-15-2008, 08:15 PM

Earlier I made a comment about Brad's narcissism. Typical narcissist behavior is that of not caring about anything except for themselves, or what they can get out of other people that benefits the narcissist. They especially care about what others think about them, for example, looks, possessions, their public persona. Behind closed doors they usually are a whole different person. Raging bulls. Belittlers, abusers, Jeckyl and Hyde.

Scott Peterson, Michael Petersen, and many of our wife killers had narcissism in their blood. Brad's got plenty of that, according to descriptions by others. I think his ex-girlfriend from Canada told it well. (I've known a few women narcissists too.)

Behind narcissism many times is some sort of abuse or neglect in early years. That's not all, but a big part. Our early childhood years are so important. Wonder what his were like? Especially with that cold, controlling mother of his.

When he didn't want Jessica to stay with his girls while he "looked for Nancy" in the car, he probably did not want Jessica asking them questions, or possibly seeing something in the house, or having her check the phones, computers or anything else she could have. Not that she would have. Just supposing.

MoonFlwr

08-15-2008, 08:16 PM

Bolding is mine. Many on this board have said if he made an offer of a reward it would be straight out of the "OJ Playbook."

Yep, I remember some of those posts. Thanks for the reminder! :)

EntreNous

08-15-2008, 08:16 PM

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 08:22 PM

Could not be any plainer. Why are you surprised? I'm a neophyte but seems like common sense to me. What am I missing, RC?

I'm not surprised that Brad would be a suspect - in fact I believe he is the suspect.

I am surprised the Assistant DA acutally worded it that way - there are only three people that could be affected by the search warrants of the house Brad, Bella, and Katie. I'm pretty confident in ruling Bella and Katie out as the "possible defendant" - leaving only Brad - I just find it odd wording.

carolinalady

08-15-2008, 08:25 PM

MoonFlwr

08-15-2008, 08:26 PM

Please look at the document: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/15/3387954/willoughbymotions.pdf.

The paperworks still states that it could hamper/impede an ongoing investigation and/or etc. etc. etc.

The media seems to cherry pick portions of the motion.

Hey, you're right carolinalady. It sure reads differently when you take the whole paragraph into account!

"That to publicly disclose the search warrant, application or the results thereof might hamper or impede this ongoing investigation and/or may release information that could adversely affect persons who are not charged with committing a crime and materially prejudice further adjudicative procedures involving this investigation and any subsequent prosecution."

carolinalady

08-15-2008, 08:27 PM

I'm not surprised that Brad would be a suspect - in fact I believe he is the suspect.

I am surprised the Assistant DA acutally worded it that way - there are only three people that could be affected by the search warrants of the house Brad, Bella, and Katie. I'm pretty confident in ruling Bella and Katie out as the "possible defendant" - leaving only Brad - I just find it odd wording.

Again, read the motion. The ADA gave the standard lists of reasons. The media focused on that one portion, just like they did when the initial order to seal was implemented.

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 08:28 PM

Please look at the document: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/15/3387954/willoughbymotions.pdf.

The paperworks still states that it could hamper/impede an ongoing investigation and/or etc. etc. etc.

The media seems to cherry pick portions of the motion.

I read it - seems pretty obvious to me there was evidence found at the residence to either prove it a crime scene or to implicate someone in nancy's murder. I would much rather take this approach as it is clear the murder happened in that house - based on not cherry picking the motion.

Roy23

08-15-2008, 08:36 PM

carolinalady

08-15-2008, 08:38 PM

I read it - seems pretty obvious to me there was evidence found at the residence to either prove it a crime scene or to implicate someone in nancy's murder. I would much rather take this approach as it is clear the murder happened in that house - based on not cherry picking the motion.

I just was trying to point out that the media cherry picked a portion of the motion, just like when the original decision to seal was handed down. It would lead some to believe that he has been officially named a defendant or POI, when in fact he has not been named. Of course, we all know the husband is always looked at when a wife is murdered. But again, I was pointing out that the statement was only a portion of the reasons listed.

What approach would you rather take? I don't understand what you're referring to.

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 08:38 PM

I do read anything that tells me the murder happened in the house. What makes you think that?

Release of evidence from the house or cars or DNA for that matter could hinder the investigtion - if there was nothing - how could that possibly be true ?

Roy23

08-15-2008, 08:41 PM

Release of evidence from the house could hinder the investigtion - if there was nothing - how could that possibly be true ?

How could that hinder the investigation and protect a possible defendant?

carolinalady

08-15-2008, 08:42 PM

I do not read anything that tells me the murder happened in the house. What makes you think that?

I don't see it either. The wording seems the same on all three requests.

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 08:51 PM

How could that hinder the investigation and protect a possible defendant?

Roy, i ask myself a lot of very simple questions.

If nothing was found in that house , why did LE drag all that stuff out of there and if it all means nothing how could it possibly hinder an investigation or in any way harm Brad ? If there is nothing, why not say so and move on.

Looking at it on basic terms, it seems obvious that just as the DA says - releasing the information would hurt the investigation and possibly someone who has not yet been charged. I don't see this as complicated, to release information, you must first have information.

fran

08-15-2008, 08:55 PM

Again, bolding is mine. Which statement of his makes you think he blamed Nancy for his wife's infidelity?

Well, Heider's wife slept with Brad. Or, at least had sex with him, while she was married to Mr. Heider. Yet, he's all buddy, buddy with the guy who slept with his wife and trashes the aduterer's murdered wife.:confused:

Seems pretty hostile to me. Like maybe he blamed Nancy for Brad messing with his then wife, Mrs. Heider NO Hyphen.:eek:

You'd think he'd be angry at Brad. I guess he and Brad just have different values than MOST people.:rolleyes:

Or.............maybe that's just me. ;)

JMHO
fran

fran

08-15-2008, 08:58 PM

Roy, i ask myself a lot of very simple questions.

If nothing was found in that house , why did LE drag all that stuff out of there and if it all means nothing how could it possibly hinder an investigation or in any way harm Brad ? If there is nothing, why not say so and move on.

Looking at it on basic terms, it seems obvious that just as the DA says - releasing the information would hurt the investigation and possibly someone who has not yet been charged. I don't see this as complicated, to release information, you must first have information.

Or even more importantly, IF LE didn't find anything in the house, what led them to Brad's office at his place of employment, Cisco?:confused:

Had to have GOOD grounds for that!:eek:

Hope they found what they're looking for. ;)

JMHO
fran

PS....At the least, imo, Brad Cooper may NOT be a suspect.....YET.......but he has NOT been cleared yet!:rolleyes:

fran

08-15-2008, 09:00 PM

Earth to all!

Brad Cooper IS the FOCUS of this investigation into the MURDER of Nancy Cooper.

No matter what way your lay it, BRAD is the focus. :behindbar

JMHO
fran

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 09:01 PM

Or even more importantly, IF LE didn't find anything in the house, what led them to Brad's office at his place of employment, Cisco?:confused:

Had to have GOOD grounds for that!:eek:

Hope they found what they're looking for. ;)

JMHO
fran

PS....At the least, imo, Brad Cooper may NOT be a suspect.....YET.......but he has NOT been cleared yet!:rolleyes:

Exactly Fran - to get that warrant for Cisco - it took something more than just a hunch to serve a warrant on a company totally unassociated with the victim. Most likely that reason was found in the home or in one of the cars.

Specifically office 7A in Buildng 9 which so happens to be Mr. Cooper's office space.

carolinalady

08-15-2008, 09:03 PM

Earth to all!

Brad Cooper IS the FOCUS of this investigation into the MURDER of Nancy Cooper.

No matter what way your lay it, BRAD is the focus. :behindbar

JMHO
fran

Bolded statement (bolding done by me) is a little uncalled for. Do you really think that we don't know that Brad is the focus? No need to imply that we aren't intelligent enough to realize that. IMO, of course.

Roy23

08-15-2008, 09:03 PM

Earth to all!

Brad Cooper IS the FOCUS of this investigation into the MURDER of Nancy Cooper.

No matter what way your lay it, BRAD is the focus. :behindbar

JMHO
fran

There is no doubt about that. Even if they have almost nothing, though, with that marriage LE would still be persuing him no matter how complicated it seems.

SleuthSayer

08-15-2008, 09:07 PM

With his HUGE bonus, you'd think he'd offer a reward of sumpin'. :waitasec: Or is he waiting for someone else to pick up the tab,........like for Nancy's funeral?:rolleyes:

Except he didn't get the "HUGE" bonus. Or, I should say, I suppose the definition of "HUGE" varies depending on your own perspective. But, the scale of bonus mentioned in a previous thread here was vastly incorrect.

Anderson

08-15-2008, 09:10 PM

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 09:12 PM

Onescout

08-15-2008, 09:15 PM

Except he didn't get the "HUGE" bonus. Or, I should say, I suppose the definition of "HUGE" varies depending on your own perspective. But, the scale of bonus mentioned in a previous thread here was vastly incorrect.

Huge or not, the point being, BC never offered a reward for the killer/killers of Nancy.
Even if the marriage was strained , my God , wouldn't you move heaven and earth to find the person who killed Nancy.....or hire a PI to clear yourself?

As far as Scott Heider is concerned , wouldn't you punch the man who bonked your wife rather than praise him?

It's all too wierd...nothing adds up from the get-go.

And I am so happy to hear the words "possible defendant"...this means a trial is in the future....someone is going to be be charged.

SleuthSayer

08-15-2008, 09:17 PM

Just any amount for a reward is better than nothing! IMO if Cisco believed in their employee they would make an attempt help with a reward.

I asked about this several days ago, but never saw a response. Apologies if I just missed it.

You say that your opinion is that Cisco would offer an award. Can you site some examples of other huge companies offering rewards in association with crimes where employee's family members are victims when those crimes don't involve the company in any way? I.e., didn't occur on company property, at a company event, etc.

I've seen this opinion posted several times and I'm just curious where the notion comes from that a company would/should involve themselves in this way.

As far as "believing" in Brad. How would Cisco know what he did or didn't do in his home (assuming that's where the crime was committed)?

Roy23

08-15-2008, 09:18 PM

Huge or not, the point being, BC never offered a reward for the killer/killers of Nancy.
Even if the marriage was strained , my God , wouldn't you move heaven and earth to find the person who killed Nancy.....or hire a PI to clear yourself?

As far as Scott Heider is concerned , wouldn't you punch the man who bonked your wife rather than praise him?

It's all too wierd...nothing adds up from the get-go.

And I am so happy to hear the words "possible defendant"...this means a trial is in the future....someone is going to be be charged.

Whether he got a bonus or not, it means nothing as far as the guilt of BC. If a DA brings this up, they are grasping at straws. Who cares?

EntreNous

08-15-2008, 09:29 PM

In a google search I could only find where a company offered a reward for info. leading to the arrest of person or persons that killed one of their employees. The employee was killed in his home.

Onescout

08-15-2008, 09:31 PM

Whether he got a bonus or not, it means nothing as far as the guilt of BC. If a DA brings this up, they are grasping at straws. Who cares?

Well actually, they would have more to go on ,of course, like opportunity and motive....and his actions after she went missing would all be involved as his "demeanor".
These things are all tools for the DA, in fact defendant demeanor is always part of trial and especially closing arguments.
So you can't discount it.

It is all part of case building along with physical evidence.

Roy23

08-15-2008, 09:38 PM

Well actually, they would have more to go on ,of course, like opportunity and motive....and his actions after she went missing would all be involved as his "demeanor".
These things are all tools for the DA, in fact defendant demeanor is always part of trial and especially closing arguments.
So you can't discount it.

It is all part of case building along with physical evidence.

I can discount it. The defense attorney can show 1000 incidences where a husband who did not kill his wife did not offer a reward. There are enough incidences already that show that Brad and Nancy had a horrible marriage. Brad has stated so.

fran

08-15-2008, 09:44 PM

There is no doubt about that. Even if they have almost nothing, though, with that marriage LE would still be persuing him no matter how complicated it seems.

Whether Brad did this or not, this case does have all the usual signs of the every day familial homicide. Including the husband being the last known person to have seen the victim. Oh, and not to mention she was attempting to leave him. Which has been proven when attempting to severe the relationship is the most dangerous time for the abused.

Whether LE has 'evidence' or not remains to be seen. The fact they're keeping those sw's sealed tells me they have SOMTHING. Just what, I have no idea.

JMHO
fran

SleuthSayer

08-15-2008, 09:47 PM

In a google search I could only find where a company offered a reward for info. leading to the arrest of person or persons that killed one of their employees. The employee was killed in his home.

It's definitely not unheard of for a company to offer a reward in the case of an employee that was the victim of a violent crime, as discussed here (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2477799&postcount=316)

I was looking for precedent for large companies spontaneously getting involved where the victim is a family member of an employee and the crime doesn't involve the company.

Onescout

08-15-2008, 09:51 PM

I can discount it. The defense attorney can show 1000 incidences where a husband who did not kill his wife did not offer a reward. There are enough incidences already that show that Brad and Nancy had a horrible marriage. Brad has stated so.

I'm merely saying that it is all part of case building. His actions after she went missing are suspect from the moment of the 911 call from JA.
Most LE would NOT show up at your house for at least 24 hours on a missing spouse.

They are watching his demeanor and it will be part of the trail, and yes, it is his attorneys job to dispute and shoot down everything that is said, just as you have.
But , what does the overall picture show? The jury weighs ALL the evidence, and depending on the way the scales tip.....well you know the rest.

fran

08-15-2008, 09:51 PM

I can discount it. The defense attorney can show 1000 incidences where a husband who did not kill his wife did not offer a reward. There are enough incidences already that show that Brad and Nancy had a horrible marriage. Brad has stated so.

While it may be just ONE circumstance in a case that will 'hook' a juror as to the guilt of the defendent, LE does not rely on ONE circumstance pointing toward the guilt of the defendent before bringing the case to trial. Each piece of circumstantial evidence is placed together like a puzzle, until the picture of murder appears.

The defense attorney could probably find alternate scenarios for many of the circumstances that LE will bring forward towards whoever did this crime. But it gets to a point there's too much evidence and the jury no longer believes the defense. The jury comes to the conclusion the def attorney is just making EXCUSES for his client.

JMHO
fran

Roy23

08-15-2008, 10:00 PM

I'm merely saying that it is all part of case building. His actions after she went missing are suspect from the moment of the 911 call from JA.
Most LE would NOT show up at your house for at least 24 hours on a missing spouse.

They are watching his demeanor and it will be part of the trail, and yes, it is his attorneys job to dispute and shoot down everything that is said, just as you have.
But , what does the overall picture show? The jury weighs ALL the evidence, and depending on the way the scales tip.....well you know the rest.

I don't see that in this case. If Brad did offer a reward, it would be called petty. This is one of those danged if you do or danged if you don't moments. Brad has admitted that his marriage sucked so this reward means nothing. This case needs hard evidence and not stuff like this. Brad is not making his marriage too much better than Nancy's peers.

cygnusx1

08-15-2008, 10:01 PM

Roy, i ask myself a lot of very simple questions.

If nothing was found in that house , why did LE drag all that stuff out of there...

Do those bags contain actual evidence or do they contain items which could possibly have trace evidence that requires lab scrutiny?

Roy23

08-15-2008, 10:05 PM

Whether Brad did this or not, this case does have all the usual signs of the every day familial homicide. Including the husband being the last known person to have seen the victim. Oh, and not to mention she was attempting to leave him. Which has been proven when attempting to severe the relationship is the most dangerous time for the abused.

Whether LE has 'evidence' or not remains to be seen. The fact they're keeping those sw's sealed tells me they have SOMTHING. Just what, I have no idea.

JMHO
fran

I agree with you for the most part. I just am not sure how much they have and how important it is. The thing that I have disagreed with you on is that you have created numerous simple husband killing wife scenario's when they haven't said jack. I give you credit for the simplest explanation stuff you say is almost always right. I just have some doubts due to LE's tactics that I haven't seen before.

Come on Fran, this reward stuff is not real powerful stuff.

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 10:06 PM

Do those bags contain actual evidence or do they contain items which could possibly have trace evidence that requires lab scrutiny?

If they would release the warrants - we would know the answer to that question. Since the items were containerized in "evidence bags and or boxes" it is reasonable to assume LE found some reason to collect it. As to its value and testing requirements, we have no idea as the inventory is sealed with the affidavits and the warrants.

Onescout

08-15-2008, 10:28 PM

I don't see that in this case. If Brad did offer a reward, it would be called petty. This is one of those danged if you do or danged if you don't moments. Brad has admitted that his marriage sucked so this reward means nothing. This case needs hard evidence and not stuff like this. Brad is not making his marriage too much better than Nancy's peers.

Well if he DID offer a reward, it wouldn't be a point for prosecution to bring up then would it?
Whether the marraige sucked , as you put it, or not wouldn't have bearing on this, she is still the mother of his children and a member of the community, a reward would put him in a much better light.
Mind you, I am not saying this is CRUCIAL stuff, hard evidence will convict him, but the overall demeanor is very important to building a case against him...as it will be for his attorneys to build a case for him.

fran

08-15-2008, 10:30 PM

Come on Fran, this reward stuff is not real powerful stuff.

Whatever you say Roy. ;)

fran

Roy23

08-15-2008, 10:35 PM

Well if he DID offer a reward, it wouldn't be a point for prosecution to bring up then would it?
Whether the marraige sucked , as you put it, or not wouldn't have bearing on this, she is still the mother of his children and a member of the community, a reward would put him in a much better light.
Mind you, I am not saying this is CRUCIAL stuff, hard evidence will convict him, but the overall demeanor is very important to building a case against him...as it will be for his attorneys to build a case for him.

If that is your opinion, fine. To me it would look superficial. Him offering a reward means little to me because it doesn't change anything. It is only PR to me. It doesn't bring his wife back. But that is my opinion.

Roy23

08-15-2008, 10:37 PM

Whatever you say Roy. ;)

fran

He hated his marriage life to his wife. If that part was disputed, I would feel differently maybe.

fran

08-15-2008, 10:41 PM

He hated his marriage life to his wife. If that part was disputed, I would feel differently maybe.

No. I understood that he love his wife and wanted the marriage to work. That is what he put on his affidavit.

But ALL of his actions since his wife was murdered have said something entirely different. Entirely.

Just an observation and I'm sure it's not lost on LE.

JMHO
fran

Roy23

08-15-2008, 10:47 PM

Roy23

08-15-2008, 10:55 PM

No. I understood that he love his wife and wanted the marriage to work. That is what he put on his affidavit.

But ALL of his actions since his wife was murdered have said something entirely different. Entirely.

Just an observation and I'm sure it's not lost on LE.

JMHO
fran

Fran,

If you would answer this one question. And anybody else that wants to play feel free. If you are sitting on a jury right now and the evidence presented right now is what it is, do you find him guilty?

I mean he had a horrible marriage and his friends say he didn't give her enough money and he didn't offer a reward do you find him guilty?

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 10:55 PM

"But ALL of his actions since his wife was murdered have said something entirely different. Entirely."

I think all this can be argued. His actions don't prove anything. This case will be tried on physical evidence. Without it, it won't go to trial.

Roy you might think about that again - his actions are very important. For example if it was indeed his action to walk into a store at 420 am and buy cleaning products and then deny that to LE and they have proof - that action and denial says something pertinent to the case. If he walked into Lifetime Fitness and tried to use his wife's card on the day she is missing well that certainly says something doesn't it. Not all circumstantial evidence is physical in nature -and a persons actions, where abouts, and emotional feelings about a deceased person are indeed relevant and circumstantial - motive is all about thoughts and actions. Circumstantial cases are built on a variety of things not just physical evidence. There is little doubt this will be a circumstantial case - without a confession or eyewitnesses - it can be nothing else. How he treated his wife will certainly be important.

Roy23

08-15-2008, 10:57 PM

Roy you might think about that again - his actions are very important. For example if it was indeed his action to walk into a store at 420 am and buy cleaning products and then deny that to LE and they have proof - that action and denial says something pertinent to the case. If he walked into Lifetime Fitness and tried to use his wife's card on the day she is missing well that certainly says something doesn't it. Not all circumstantial evidence is physical in nature -and a persons actions, where abouts, and emotional feelings about a deceased person are indeed relevant and circumstantial - motive is all about thoughts and actions. Circumstantial cases are built on a variety of things not just physical evidence. There is little doubt this will be a circumstantial case - without a confession or eyewitnesses - it can be nothing else. How he treated his wife will certainly be important.

Sure, we already know he treated his wife bad. And we don't know he walked in HT at 4:20. If you are on a jury right now, do you find him guilty?

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 11:01 PM

Sure, we already know he treated his wife bad. And we don't know he walked in HT at 4:20. If you are on a jury right now, do you find him guilty?

Right now with what little we know - as a juror - absolutely no way.

Roy23

08-15-2008, 11:02 PM

Sure, we already know he treated his wife bad. And we don't know he walked in HT at 4:20. If you are on a jury right now, do you find him guilty?

My point is without physical evidence it is all about nothing. They gotta have it. There is already enough circumstancial stuff that proves that Brad would want to kill his wife.

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 11:03 PM

My point is without physical evidence it is all about nothing. They gotta have it. There is already enough circumstancial stuff that proves that Brad would want to kill his wife.

Physical evidence is circumstantial Roy- nothing more.

Roy23

08-15-2008, 11:05 PM

Right now with what little we know - as a juror - absolutely no way.

That is my whole point RC. All this other stuff is just icing on the cake. They have enough as even evidenced by Brad's affidavit. But without physical evidence I think it is nothing at this point. Any decent physical evidence and this guy's ship has sunk.

Onescout

08-15-2008, 11:07 PM

Fran,

If you would answer this one question. And anybody else that wants to play feel free. If you are sitting on a jury right now and the evidence presented right now is what it is, do you find him guilty?

I mean he had a horrible marriage and his friends say he didn't give her enough money and he didn't offer a reward do you find him guilty?

HI Roy23,

Actually there couldn't be a trial based on what we have as evidence right now.....we have no TOD, COD or DNA findings.
BUT is there enough to name him as a POI, yes...but LE is choosing to play this one very close to the vest and not naming him.
Plus the mumbo jumbo of that term really means little to those deep in the case.
I will say however, that Charles Manson was convicted on pure circumstantial evidence, no DNA, no blood no nothing...
This forum is about theories and good old common sense, it acts as a think tank.

Roy23

08-15-2008, 11:08 PM

Physical evidence is circumstantial Roy- nothing more.

Not in my eyes. TOD, evidence of a stuggle, blood----sure they can be argued but it would be central piece with all of this other stuff for me to convict. They need it.

fran

08-15-2008, 11:08 PM

My point is without physical evidence it is all about nothing. They gotta have it. There is already enough circumstancial stuff that proves that Brad would want to kill his wife.

The physical evidence is Nancy's body. The rest will most likely be circumstantial, IF he's tried.

We'll just wait until LE finishes investigating, then we'll see IF they have enough.

Right now, NO, I couldn't convict him. But believe me, he's getting there. IF I knew what LE knows, I may already personally say, yes....BUT, I don't KNOW what they do.

JMHO
fran

Roy23

08-15-2008, 11:10 PM

HI Roy23,

Actually there couldn't be a trial based on what we have as evidence right now.....we have no TOD, COD or DNA findings.
BUT is there enough to name him as a POI, yes...but LE is choosing to play this one very close to the vest and not naming him.
Plus the mumbo jumbo of that term really means little to those deep in the case.
I will say however, that Charles Manson was convicted on pure circumstantial evidence, no DNA, no blood no nothing...
This forum is about theories and good old common sense, it acts as a think tank.

To me, other persons who testified that Charlie sent them out there to kill other people is not as circumstancial as Brad not offering a reward. Food for thought. To our knowledge, Brad hasn't done anything violent in his past unlike Charlie.

Roy23

08-15-2008, 11:12 PM

The physical evidence is Nancy's body. The rest will most likely be circumstantial, IF he's tried.

We'll just wait until LE finishes investigating, then we'll see IF they have enough.

Right now, NO, I couldn't convict him. But believe me, he's getting there. IF I knew what LE knows, I may already personally say, yes....BUT, I don't KNOW what they do.

JMHO
fran

That is my point Fran. All I want to see is evidence of violence. I can promise you that only a moron can't see motive here. I think this board has covered motive ad nauseum.

Do you guys follow me?

fran

08-15-2008, 11:13 PM

HI Roy23,

Actually there couldn't be a trial based on what we have as evidence right now.....we have no TOD, COD or DNA findings.
BUT is there enough to name him as a POI, yes...but LE is choosing to play this one very close to the vest and not naming him.
Plus the mumbo jumbo of that term really means little to those deep in the case.
I will say however, that Charles Manson was convicted on pure circumstantial evidence, no DNA, no blood no nothing...
This forum is about theories and good old common sense, it acts as a think tank.

Scott Peterson was convicted on completely circumstantial evidence as well. They had no TOD, no COD, no crime scene.......

It was all circumstantial. But it was so voluminous, anyone in their right mind who really studied the trial, knew there was no way there could be that many 'coincidences' and NOT ENOUGH excuses could make it look any better.

JMHO
fran

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 11:17 PM

Not in my eyes. TOD, evidence of a stuggle, blood----sure they can be argued but it would be central piece with all of this other stuff for me to convict. They need it.

Roy - everything you have mentioned above is circumstantial evidence. TOD is not going to tell LE exactley when Nancy died - it will be a range but the precision will not be in minutes -it is essential but it is still circumstantial. Evidence of a struggle - LE observed that house not long after nancy went missing - LE will testify as to what they saw at that time. Evidence collected under the warrants and sent for testing will be presented - but the truth is this is also circumstantial evidence - so is blood, so too is DNA.

fran

08-15-2008, 11:18 PM

That is my point Fran. All I want to see is evidence of violence. I can promise you that only a moron can't see motive here. I think this board has covered motive ad nauseum.

Do you guys follow me?

There was never one shredd of evidence that Scott Peterson ever abused Laci either mentally or physically. It was all 'circumstantial.' But you see, circumstantial is more powerful than even an eye witness. Eye witnesses are wrong all the time.

Too many circumstances can point to murder.

We do NOT know everything they have on Brad. Heck, they may not have anything. I don't know. But,........he looks good for it to me. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

TOD turns out to be well BEFORE 7:00 a.m. that Saturday morning, I don't believe anything could save him. Believe me, IF she were killed shortly after returning home, LE will know as soon as they get the autopsy back.

THAT would be pretty powerful, IMO.

JMHO
fran

Jess

08-15-2008, 11:21 PM

Roy
There is circumstantial evidence and there is eyewitness evidence. All physical evidence is circumstantial. Not all deaths leave behind a trail of 'bloody' evidence or signs of violence.
No, I could not convict Brad with what is KNOWN right now. But I am confident that with what we don't know, an arrest will be made. I happen to think it will be Brad, but I could be wrong. Time will tell.

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 11:23 PM

That is my point Fran. All I want to see is evidence of violence. I can promise you that only a moron can't see motive here. I think this board has covered motive ad nauseum.

Do you guys follow me?

Then you would never be selected as a juror if that is all you want to see.

Here's a very basic list of evidence types -and uses. perhaps it will help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Roy23

08-15-2008, 11:25 PM

There was never one shredd of evidence that Scott Peterson ever abused Laci either mentally or physically. It was all 'circumstantial.' But you see, circumstantial is more powerful than even an eye witness. Eye witnesses are wrong all the time.

Too many circumstances can point to murder.

We do NOT know everything they have on Brad. Heck, they may not have anything. I don't know. But,........he looks good for it to me. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

TOD turns out to be well BEFORE 7:00 a.m. that Saturday morning, I don't believe anything could save him. Believe me, IF she were killed shortly after returning home, LE will know as soon as they get the autopsy back.

THAT would be pretty powerful, IMO.

JMHO
fran

I totally agree on the TOD. And I know what you are saying too RC. In SP's case they caught him in lie after lie. Yeah, it is circmstancial but they pieced together a puzzle that was solved with concrete, lies, infidelity at time of death, witnesses, and ultimately the bodies found near where SP was for his alibi.

You guys don't need to get so technical on me:)

They haven't found any lies or any of this that they have released. The 4:20 am HT purchase would convince me he did it. They would need more but that would be circumstancial enough. Personally, I do believe Nancy was a little materialistic. Not that it means anything.

MoonFlwr

08-15-2008, 11:30 PM

i can promise you that only a moron can't see motive here. I think this board has covered motive ad nauseum.

ea-sy....!

Roy23

08-15-2008, 11:32 PM

Then you would never be selected as a juror if that is all you want to see.

Here's a very basic list of evidence types -and uses. perhaps it will help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Come on RC. That is condescending.

Maybe my ideas of circumstancial are not text book. As far as we know, Brad hasn't lied. It is amazing of all that have crucified him for not having one small piece of evidence. I understand the SW but nothing has been said other than Brad and Nancy abused each other mentally. That is it.

I totally get that there is a 95% chance he is guilty from history. But LE is throwing me for a loop with their actions and quietness. It is impressive.

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 11:34 PM

I totally agree on the TOD. And I know what you are saying too RC. In SP's case they caught him in lie after lie. Yeah, it is circmstancial but they pieced together a puzzle that was solved with concrete, lies, infidelity at time of death, witnesses, and ultimately the bodies found near where SP was for his alibi.

You guys don't need to get so technical on me:)

They haven't found any lies or any of this that they have released. The 4:20 am HT purchase would convince me he did it. They would need more but that would be circumstancial enough. Personally, I do believe Nancy was a little materialistic. Not that it means anything.

Okay - got you ! Sorry - we do get a tad technical , it just happens after following cases.

Things will be much better if we ever get any information - but to be very honest, I believe those search warrants are going to stay sealed right up to who ever's trial and only at trial will stuff of importance start coming out. Despite Judge Stephens saying this is not a trend - it is indeed an emerging pattern - the public has the right to know but is continuously denied that right because our PC society dictates a suspect's rights are more important than the victims and the public's right.

Onescout

08-15-2008, 11:35 PM

To me, other persons who testified that Charlie sent them out there to kill other people is not as circumstancial as Brad not offering a reward. Food for thought. To our knowledge, Brad hasn't done anything violent in his past unlike Charlie.

Hi ROy,

AS I recall from reading the book by Bugliosi, there was no testimony from the other family members that convicted Charlie Manson. They in fact protected him. Exception being Tex Watkins who testified of the Helter Skelter philosphy, and CHalies vision of violence.
But what I am saying here, is that everything matters, every hard piece of evidence and his demeanor through the whole she-bang...including how he acts at trial (which has been known to sway jurors).
Andrea Yates was never violent before she killed her children, Scott Peterson was never violent before he killed Lacy...so it doesn't matter if BC never did anything violent in his past.
In fact, this could have happened by accident , during a fight ,and he panicked, now he's in too deep to come clean.
It reminds me of how they cume statistics... and we're at the "acts like a duck, quacks like a duck" stage, and the hard evidence will bring us to "it is a duck."

Roy23

08-15-2008, 11:40 PM

Okay - got you ! Sorry - we do get a tad technical , it just happens after following cases.

Things will be much better if we ever get any information - but to be very honest, I believe those search warrants are going to stay sealed right up to who ever's trial and only at trial will stuff of importance start coming out. Despite Judge Stephens saying this is not a trend - it is indeed an emerging pattern - the public has the right to know but is continuously denied that right because our PC society dictates a suspect's rights are more important than the victims and the public's right.

Where I struggle is that they only need a tidbit of evidence. You might be right about a new trend being started. It might have to do with Michelle Young or a Chief with strong conviction. But this is different. Like Fran says, this is the most typical husband kills wife case. But he is on the street and labeled cooperative and not even a POI. Never seen it before. The devil's advocate/conspiricy theorists in me makes me think there is more in this than meets the eye.

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 11:44 PM

Come on RC. That is condescending.

Maybe my ideas of circumstancial are not text book. As far as we know, Brad hasn't lied. It is amazing of all that have crucified him for not having one small piece of evidence. I understand the SW but nothing has been said other than Brad and Nancy abused each other mentally. That is it.

I totally get that there is a 95% chance he is guilty from history. But LE is throwing me for a loop with their actions and quietness. It is impressive.

It was never meant to be condescending. From listening to you, the blood and guts is what came to the front, the disregard for other evidence tended to indicate no clue. My mistake.

Brad hasn't lied ? Look again - there are several outright lies in his affidavits - in some instances the 1st contradicts the 2nd, contradicts his own webpage and contradicts even the friends that stood up for him.

There was a very good conversation yesterday about red flags -a good portion of which was based in fact. There are plenty of facts to form a reasonable opinion if one bothers to look at all of them.

fran

08-15-2008, 11:46 PM

I'm just bringing this here as this is what Nancy relayed to her friends who then conveyed this information on their affidavits. Of course, Brad denies these allegations and he's backed up by his friends. But, IMHO, LE is aware of the denials of an abuser. It's standard procedure for an abuser to deny his hurtful actions that go on behind closed doors.

The bottom like is, LE is stupid. They can see right through this.

JMHO
fran

PS...points in red are things that we KNOW Nancy faced per her friends. There may be other things we know NOTHING about. Additional signs of abuse MAY come out IF necessary.....fran

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects .htm

Economic or financial abuse

Remember, an abuser’s goal is to control you, and he will frequently hurt you to do that. In addition to hurting you emotionally and physically, an abusive partner may also hurt you in the pocketbook. Economic of financial abuse includes:

Withholding money or credit cards.
Giving you an allowance. Controlling the finances.
Making you account for every penny you spend.
Stealing from you or taking your money.
Exploiting your assets for personal gain.
Withholding basic necessities (food, clothes, medications, shelter).
Preventing you from working or choosing your own career.
Sabotaging your job (making you miss work, calling constantly)

It's impossible to know with certainty what goes on behind closed doors, but there are some telltale signs and symptoms of domestic violence and abuse. If you witness a number of warning signs in a friend, family member, or co-worker, you can reasonably suspect domestic abuse.

Domestic Violence Warning Signs

Frequent injuries, with the excuse of “accidents”
Frequent and sudden absences from work or school
Frequent, harassing phone calls from the partner
Fear of the partner, references to the partner's anger
Personality changes (e.g. an outgoing woman becomes withdrawn)
Excessive fear of conflict
Submissive behavior, lack of assertiveness
Isolation from friends and family
Insufficient resources to live (money, credit cards, car)
Depression, crying, low self-esteem

maconrich

08-15-2008, 11:46 PM

ok, I'm stunned that NOTHING from the search warrants will be released! I fully expected that at least sections would be released, and for me this is Huge as far as the role BC may have played in NC's murder.

Reason? - If LE is convinced, at this point, that he's innocent and if nothing of importance (that focused on BC) was contained in the documents, I can see NO reason they wouldn't have been released (in full or in part). There has to be something there that points either directly or indirectly to BC. That's the only thing that makes sense (to me).

Now with the gym (which continues to bother me). Does SH happen to live between the Cooper home and Lifetime? Or could SH possibly have been there when BC stopped by checking on Nancy? Could it be that someone else BC has close ties with was there on that time, on that day? I can almost accept he might have used the gym as a way of convincing the girls that NC was there, but I can't help but wonder if there was another reason...

Oh, hope all of y'all that are over in the Cary/Raleigh area fared ok during the storms!!!

Onescout

08-15-2008, 11:50 PM

Roy23

08-15-2008, 11:53 PM

It was never meant to be condescending. From listening to you, the blood and guts is what came to the front, the disregard for other evidence tended to indicate no clue. My mistake.

Brad hasn't lied ? Look again - there are several outright lies in his affidavits - in some instances the 1st contradicts the 2nd, contradicts his own webpage and contradicts even the friends that stood up for him.

There was a very good conversation yesterday about red flags -a good portion of which was based in fact. There are plenty of facts to form a reasonable opinion if one bothers to look at all of them.

When you have time do you mind pointing those lies out to me? I haven't seen that. I don't even know why this case is so interesting to me. Normally I am just interested in forensic science and serial killers. Not law. I have seen ample signs that Nancy was a prima donna and stretched the truth. I have not seen Brad's lies although I do feel he was a control freak.

I also read you latest post Fran but i see abuse from both Nancy and Brad. And not once have I seen a sign of physical abuse by Brad. Only speculation from others.

maconrich

08-15-2008, 11:54 PM

I have a feeling that LE is protecting everything so when it goes to trial there is no chance of mistrial through gathering and protecting of evidence and making sure that BC gets his due process and isn't tried through the media , and also, it helps to keep things really quiet so you can pick a jury locally.
They are really playing this smart and close to the vest.
But of course we all are dying for something to move on this one!

ITA and again I'd rather see nothing released if it would jeopardize the case (arrest and/or trial)!

Roy23

08-15-2008, 11:57 PM

I would like to see one proven lie. Anybody have one? Please

raisincharlie

08-15-2008, 11:58 PM

fran

08-15-2008, 11:58 PM

Where I struggle is that they only need a tidbit of evidence. You might be right about a new trend being started. It might have to do with Michelle Young or a Chief with strong conviction. But this is different. Like Fran says, this is the most typical husband kills wife case. But he is on the street and labeled cooperative and not even a POI. Never seen it before. The devil's advocate/conspiricy theorists in me makes me think there is more in this than meets the eye.

The thing about Brad being cooperative. That was the first days. When Nancy was still missing and up until her body was found. The minute LE served a SW, Brad quit cooperating, he lawyered up. I'm willing to bet he hasn't called LE once to ask if there's any progress. Ok, he has a lawyer and maybe they would tell you not to.

Believe me, if it was my spouse who'd been murdered, I'd be on the phone at least once a day to see if there was any progress. It's human nature. Unless you don't want to know.

After the first press conference, he stopped going because he didn't want to be asked questions, IMO. He then backed out of three memorial services. I am almost certain he was NOT asked to stay away. IF he had, his attorney would have already yelled from the highest flag pole. LE takes this into account to. Believe me, they do.

As for Brad lying. I don't know how much he lied about, but I'm confident he lied about his treatment of Nancy. He then enlisted his friends to help prove he was telling the truth (and he wasn't) I'm also fairly certain he lied about a couple of other things in the deposition. Therefore, I don't know how much of his affidavit I do believe.

Just because he said it in an affidavit, does NOT mean it's true. Look at Scott Peterson in his interview on DS. He flat out said 'yes, I told the police about Amber.' It was a flat out lie and MPD was watching the broadcast.

Many people lie because they've always gotten away with it don't expect someone to question them. We're not talking about career criminals here. We're talking about normal, every day people who have a dark secret and may have taken it to the next level.

JMHO
fran

Roy23

08-16-2008, 12:01 AM

The thing about Brad being cooperative. That was the first days. When Nancy was still missing and up until her body was found. The minute LE served a SW, Brad quit cooperating, he lawyered up. I'm willing to bet he hasn't called LE once to ask if there's any progress. Ok, he has a lawyer and maybe they would tell you not to.

Believe me, if it was my spouse who'd been murdered, I'd be on the phone at least once a day to see if there was any progress. It's human nature. Unless you don't want to know.

After the first press conference, he stopped going because he didn't want to be asked questions, IMO. He then backed out of three memorial services. I am almost certain he was NOT asked to stay away. IF he had, his attorney would have already yelled from the highest flag pole. LE takes this into account to. Believe me, they do.

As for Brad lying. I don't know how much he lied about, but I'm confident he lied about his treatment of Nancy. He then enlisted his friends to help prove he was telling the truth (and he wasn't) I'm also fairly certain he lied about a couple of other things in the deposition. Therefore, I don't know how much of his affidavit I do believe.

Just because he said it in an affidavit, does NOT mean it's true. Look at Scott Peterson in his interview on DS. He flat out said 'yes, I told the police about Amber.' It was a flat out lie and MPD was watching the broadcast.

Many people lie because they've always gotten away with it don't expect someone to question them. We're not talking about career criminals here. We're talking about normal, every day people who have a dark secret and may have taken it to the next level.

JMHO
fran

Fran,

Those are all opinions. We don't know if Brad is calling LE everyday or not. Give me a lie. Please. I don't doubt he has done anything but we don't have one confirmed lie. The fact that he got a lawyer means zero.

raisincharlie

08-16-2008, 12:02 AM

I would like to see one proven lie. Anybody have one? Please

Sure - check the dates in which Brad claims he stopped training for Ironman events in his affidavits - then go to his Adventures of Brad webpage - and check his blog entries - he says in his affidavit he quit in June of 2007 - yet on his webpage -he says he is back to training since the MBA was finished- he writes this in January of 2008. There's a lie there somewhere - may seem insignifiacnt but it shows he is capable of lying - infact it proves he is lying - either in the affidavit or on his website - a lie is a lie.

I might add he also said on his blog he intended to enter the July 20 2008 ironman event in Louisville.

SleuthyGal

08-16-2008, 12:02 AM

We have such incomplete evidence released in this case that it's hard to vote in either direction. I really need to know COD and some results from those 3 SWs.

Roy23

08-16-2008, 12:05 AM

We have such incomplete evidence released in this case that it's hard to vote in either direction. I really need to know COD and some results from those 3 SWs.

I am with you. Not saying he is innocent but give us something. The board here is only speculating from SW's and probably right. But we have nothing of evidentary value at all that could convict him.

fran

08-16-2008, 12:06 AM

Fran,

Those are all opinions. We don't know if Brad is calling LE everyday or not. Give me a lie. Please. I don't doubt he has done anything but we don't have one confirmed lie. The fact that he got a lawyer means zero.

I'm with raisincharlie on this. To begin the ironman statement. Which, to me, puts doubt into the truthfulness of just about everything he said.

Just like with other cases, IF he's arrested, I'm sure we'll be amazed at what we didn't know. Truly amazed.

JMHO
fran

PS Please don't discount the signs of abuse. That's how things like that end up in murder. Everyone turned and looked the other way.......fran

SleuthyGal

08-16-2008, 12:10 AM

The 4:20 am HT purchase would convince me he did it.

I agree and if it's found that he was, in fact, at that HT before 6am, then I think that will be the big 'smoking gun' in this case. It would be a lie of immense proportions and there could not be any innocent explanation for such a lie, IMHO.

Onescout

08-16-2008, 12:11 AM

I'm with raisincharlie on this. To begin the ironman statement. Which, to me, puts doubt into the truthfulness of just about everything he said.

Just like with other cases, IF he's arrested, I'm sure we'll be amazed at what we didn't know. Truly amazed.

JMHO
fran

PS Please don't discount the signs of abuse. That's how things like that end up in murder. Everyone turned and looked the other way.......fran

And, this wouldn't convict the man of murder, for sure, but it does put him in the shaky credibility category....BUT
he had an affair and lied continuosly to his wife about it, until he was outed by the other woman.
We have yet to see documentation on HT and phone records, this will all be entered into evidence at trial.
So right now, we know he does lie for sure, let's just see what else he has hidden.

Star12

08-16-2008, 12:12 AM

Roy23

08-16-2008, 12:13 AM

I'm with raisincharlie on this. To begin the ironman statement. Which, to me, puts doubt into the truthfulness of just about everything he said.

Just like with other cases, IF he's arrested, I'm sure we'll be amazed at what we didn't know. Truly amazed.

JMHO
fran

PS Please don't discount the signs of abuse. That's how things like that end up in murder. Everyone turned and looked the other way.......fran

I don't discount signs of abuse. I have stated that motive has been proven. He had a horrible marriage and I believe there are signs of abuse. Fran, almost half of marriages have signs of abuse. Nothing I have seen proves that Brad ever physically hurt Nancy. I know about mental abuse but mental has to get physical too.

I am ready to be amazed. When they amaze me, I will say he is definitely guilty.

fran

08-16-2008, 12:13 AM

Fran,

Those are all opinions. We don't know if Brad is calling LE everyday or not. Give me a lie. Please. I don't doubt he has done anything but we don't have one confirmed lie. The fact that he got a lawyer means zero.

FWIW, Brad was invited to TWO press conferences by LE. It appears he accepted yet didn't show up. Each time LE said they 'didn't know why he wasn't there.'

THAT is NOT a good sign and shows he's pulling awayfrom LE. Some individuals may NOT think this is a big deal. But for them I say, just ask any le what they think of when the spouse of the murder vicitm stops attending press conferences that include the family.

JMHO
fran

raisincharlie

08-16-2008, 12:16 AM

FWIW, Brad was invited to TWO press conferences by LE. It appears he accepted yet didn't show up. Each time LE said they 'didn't know why he wasn't there.'

THAT is NOT a good sign and shows he's pulling awayfrom LE. Some individuals may NOT think this is a big deal. But for them I say, just ask any le what they think of when the spouse of the murder vicitm stops attending press conferences that include the family.

JMHO
fran

That is when his "cooperation" ended and the warrants began shortly thereafter. It is also the time frame in which he obtained a lawyer.

Star12

08-16-2008, 12:18 AM

FWIW, Brad was invited to TWO press conferences by LE. It appears he accepted yet didn't show up. Each time LE said they 'didn't know why he wasn't there.'

THAT is NOT a good sign and shows he's pulling awayfrom LE. Some individuals may NOT think this is a big deal. But for them I say, just ask any le what they think of when the spouse of the murder vicitm stops attending press conferences that include the family.

JMHO
fran

IF BC did it, one reason he may not have wanted to go to any more of the pressers might have been that he was too ashamed to face his inlaws? :eek:

maconrich

08-16-2008, 12:18 AM

SH lives down almost on Lake Johnston - definitely not along the way to Lifetime or Carey's house.

As to lifetime - my opinion - there was another reason for him to go there, and it wasn't looking for anyone at all or to show the girls Nancy was there.

TY for the location info :) Sooooo maybe to stash, dispose of something?? IIRC the lockers are available for a day only, so if they actually follow that policy someone would have had to have gone back to retrieve anything that might have been put in one? (Although there are probably other places one could safely hide something for a short amount of time).

Also the site says some parts of the facility are open day/night (I can't remember which right now). Would the check in procedure be the same -- as in do they have someone there to physically check the membership cards or is it done differently??

Considering Nancy's medical condition, I can't help but wonder if BC brought her medication along with him while he was driving around looking for her.

jumpstreet

08-16-2008, 12:20 AM

If you are sitting on a jury right now and the evidence presented right now is what it is, do you find him guilty?

This was a great question Roy23. So far, I haven't seen any responses indicating (based on what we currently know), that they would return a guilty verdict.

In a way this is consistent with the poll (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2465948&postcount=171) I'm keeping which asks (based on what we currently know), what's the boards opinion on the likelihood of reasons for NC's demise (current results below):

A: BC did it (or arranged it): 78.2% chance
B: Person known to NC other than BC did it: 11.8% chance
C: Random crime: 9.75% chance
D: She's Alive & In A Witness Protection Program: 0.25% chance

While "BC did it" is the frontrunner theory (based on current knowns - most of which are CE of course), that other 21.8% is what we call "reasonable doubt". Enough of it still exists (based on what we know), that would suggest there's no conviction possible based on current knowns, and the board would seem to agree.

[ Feel free to weigh in on the poll (or PM me) - will be interesting to see how (and in which direction) the numbers change as more things become known. ]

Bottom line, with this case though, even one single datapoint could change the whole landscape substantially (e.g. an eyewitness seeing Nancy running Saturday AM; confirmation that the oldest child does agree she saw Mommy go running Saturday AM, etc).

Personal prediction: We're in a waiting pattern for DNA. If another 30 days go by, and there's no break in this case, then settle in folks - it could be a long ride.

raisincharlie

08-16-2008, 12:29 AM

TY for the location info :) Sooooo maybe to stash, dispose of something?? IIRC the lockers are available for a day only, so if they actually follow that policy someone would have had to have gone back to retrieve anything that might have been put in one? (Although there are probably other places one could safely hide something for a short amount of time).

Also the site says some parts of the facility are open day/night (I can't remember which right now). Would the check in procedure be the same -- as in do they have someone there to physically check the membership cards or is it done differently??

Considering Nancy's medical condition, I can't help but wonder if BC brought her medication along with him while he was driving around looking for her.

In all of the discussions about Lifetime - it came out that a person hands their membership card to a clerk - who swipes it into the computer system. The clerk is then able to see a photograph of the card owner to verify the person using the card. It was also brought ot light that even employees must use the computer card system - no one is allowed access without going through the computerized entry system which is manned.

It was also learned there is a cafe there which would suggest would require dumpsters for waste products from the cafe, hair salon and other ammenties. It was confirmed that the lockers are for use only while one is on the premises or for no longer than 24 hours - no permanent assignment of lockers to individual clients.

As to medications - if Brad was riding about in the X5 - chances are medications would have been in her purse which was later removed by LE from the X5. Cannot say for certain however that he was in the X5.

fran

08-16-2008, 12:30 AM

IF BC did it, one reason he may not have wanted to go to any more of the pressers might have been that he was too ashamed to face his inlaws? :eek:

That and he didn't want to answer any probing questions by reporters.

I truly don't think he expected this case to get the media attention it did. So many women go missing every day, some are never found and some found murdered. You've never heard of them.

THOSE, quite often, are the cases where whoever, gets away with murder.

:(

JMHO
fran

raisincharlie

08-16-2008, 12:31 AM

This was a great question Roy23. So far, I haven't seen any responses indicating (based on what we currently know), that they would return a guilty verdict.

In a way this is consistent with the poll (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2465948&postcount=171) I'm keeping which asks (based on what we currently know), what's the boards opinion on the likelihood of reasons for NC's demise (current results below):

A: BC did it (or arranged it): 78.2% chance
B: Person known to NC other than BC did it: 11.8% chance
C: Random crime: 9.75% chance
D: She's Alive & In A Witness Protection Program: 0.25% chance

While "BC did it" is the frontrunner theory (based on current knowns - most of which are CE of course), that other 21.8% is what we call "reasonable doubt". Enough of it still exists (based on what we know), that would suggest there's no conviction possible based on current knowns, and the board would seem to agree.

[ Feel free to weigh in on the poll (or PM me) - will be interesting to see how (and in which direction) the numbers change as more things become known. ]

Bottom line, with this case though, even one single datapoint could change the whole landscape substantially (e.g. an eyewitness seeing Nancy running Saturday AM; confirmation that the oldest child does agree she saw Mommy go running Saturday AM, etc).

Personal prediction: We're in a waiting pattern for DNA. If another 30 days go by, and there's no break in this case, then settle in folks - it could be a long ride.

You can remove one data point - Chief Bazemore confirmed there were no reported sightings of Nancy running.

Onescout

08-16-2008, 12:34 AM

He repeatedly lied about his affair with HM to Nancy, then HM outed him.

This is a proven lie , his credibility is veddy veddy low indeed.
Does it make him a murderer? No.
Does it make him a liar? Yes.

What else has he lied about?

I guess we all shall see.

Of to bed and catch some late Olympics, go Phelps!

jumpstreet

08-16-2008, 12:35 AM

You can remove one data point - Chief Bazemore confirmed there were no reported sightings of Nancy running.

Thanks Raisin. I recalled the Chief had mentioned that at a presser either while the search was taking place, or shortly thereafter. Do we know if this has been re-confirmed lately?

If not, that statement was made some weeks ago, and since then, CPD has passed out a lot more fliers in a lot more locations. In fact, I recently heard they were out again as recent as last week (or 2 weeks ago) again passing out flyers and stopping motorists.

So just not sure if it's completely clear that no one has come forward. [ Most agree, and I tend to also that the best chance for someone (even 1 person) to come forward would have been in the early days (during the search), but still it's not completely clear to me that no one has come forward ]

Anyway, it was just an example of a single (relatively small) thing that would swing the likely outcomes radically. [ Of course, I suppose in most cases like this, changing "one thing" pretty much can change everything :) ]

maconrich

08-16-2008, 12:39 AM

In all of the discussions about Lifetime - it came out that a person hands their membership card to a clerk - who swipes it into the computer system. The clerk is then able to see a photograph of the card owner to verify the person using the card. It was also brought ot light that even employees must use the computer card system - no one is allowed access without going through the computerized entry system which is manned.

It was also learned there is a cafe there which would suggest would require dumpsters for waste products from the cafe, hair salon and other ammenties. It was confirmed that the lockers are for use only while one is on the premises or for no longer than 24 hours - no permanent assignment of lockers to individual clients.

As to medications - if Brad was riding about in the X5 - chances are medications would have been in her purse which was later removed by LE from the X5. Cannot say for certain however that he was in the X5.

Thank you yet again! Second paragraph is particularly interesting...

raisincharlie

08-16-2008, 12:40 AM

Thanks Raisin. I recalled the Chief had mentioned that at a presser either while the search was taking place, or shortly thereafter. Do we know if this has been re-confirmed lately?

If not, that statement was made some weeks ago, and since then CPD has passed out a lot more fliers in a lot more locations. In fact, I recently heard they were out again as recent as last week (or 2 weeks ago) again passing out flyers and stopping motorists.

Not sure if it's completely clear that no one has come forward. [ Most agree, and I tend to also that the best chance for someone (even 1 person) to come forward would have been in the early days (during the search), but still it's not completely clear to me that no one has come forward ]

LE has said nothing of any real substance since the 17th. Last I recall the last mention of no sightings was either the 14th or 15th - but I don't think there has been any other comment since.

As to the fliers - yes LE was out on the 27th - on the corner of Cary Parkway and Holly Springs Road. I have a few questions about that - first - why there - its not even close really to where Nancy was known to run and second it was reported they were out starting at 6 am - to what known fact does 6 am relate to ? Food for thought.

raisincharlie

08-16-2008, 12:43 AM

Thank you yet again! Second paragraph is particularly interesting...

You are welcome - I cannot remember what thread or page all this came out on to point you to - sorry about that - too many threads and too many days :)

fran

08-16-2008, 12:44 AM

I don't discount signs of abuse. I have stated that motive has been proven. He had a horrible marriage and I believe there are signs of abuse. Fran, almost half of marriages have signs of abuse. Nothing I have seen proves that Brad ever physically hurt Nancy. I know about mental abuse but mental has to get physical too.

I am ready to be amazed. When they amaze me, I will say he is definitely guilty.

Mental abuse, verbal abuse, is but seconds away from violence. Especially if the abused is attempting to break free of the relationship. This is the most vulnerable and dangerous point for a victim.

As far as physical abuse in the past. You're right we don't know that. But we do know he was physcially fit and considered himself a strong type of person. Their arguments had gotten louder, as evidenced by a neighbor intervening. This, IMO, was the precurser of the actual physical act of abuse. It's when the arguments become more heated that violence is almost inevitible.

Scott Peterson was never even proven to verbally abuse Laci. Michael Peterson as well, I believe.

There's two other unsolved NC cases where the husband was never proven to have physically assaulted their wife. But..........most case watchers feel they're confident who the perps are. LE just hasn't come up with the goods yet, ........or have they?

We'll just have to wait and see on this case. Brad shouldn't get to confident though. IF he did this crime, LE will most likely find out. He may be intelligent, but that doesn't mean he'd make all the right moves when it comes to a crime such as this. This isn't a computer program. It's murder.

JMHO
fran

PS....I really hate to keep bringing up domestic violence, but I strongly feel that is what this case boils down to. Domestic violence hits every socioeconomic level of our society. It's what goes on behind closed doors.......fran

SleuthSayer

08-16-2008, 12:58 AM

In a way this is consistent with the poll (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2465948&postcount=171) I'm keeping which asks (based on what we currently know), what's the boards opinion on the likelihood of reasons for NC's demise (current results below):

A: BC did it (or arranged it): 78.2% chance
B: Person known to NC other than BC did it: 11.8% chance
C: Random crime: 9.75% chance
D: She's Alive & In A Witness Protection Program: 0.25% chance

How about:

E: Scott Peterson

Because no matter what the question, Scott Peterson is at least part of the answer. ;-)

fran

08-16-2008, 12:59 AM

"PS Please don't discount the signs of abuse. That's how things like that end up in murder. Everyone turned and looked the other way.......fran"

Abuse escalates. Once a taboo has been crossed, it's easy for the abuser to keep it up, and then to move to the next taboo. And the next one. Until...

We know that their arguments had gotten more volitile, louder, as evidenced by a neighbor intervening and offering to take the children to their home.

:(

fran

momto3kids

08-16-2008, 01:03 AM

I asked about this several days ago, but never saw a response. Apologies if I just missed it.

You say that your opinion is that Cisco would offer an award. Can you site some examples of other huge companies offering rewards in association with crimes where employee's family members are victims when those crimes don't involve the company in any way? I.e., didn't occur on company property, at a company event, etc.

I've seen this opinion posted several times and I'm just curious where the notion comes from that a company would/should involve themselves in this way.

As far as "believing" in Brad. How would Cisco know what he did or didn't do in his home (assuming that's where the crime was committed)?

SS...this is the 1st time I mentioned Cisco helping to offer a reward.
This is what I said...Just any amount for a reward is better than nothing! IMO if Cisco believed in their employee they would make an attempt help with a reward.

I know Cisco sent a memo out to its employee's about this crime, and asked to support BC during this trying time. I can't imagine if BC went to the appropriate person and asked for help in raising $$ to offer a reward they would tell him not no but hexx no.

Again ~actions speak louder than words~. I bet you a dollar to a donut he hasn't asked. He has no reason to ask, because IMO he knows who commited this crime.

maconrich

08-16-2008, 01:04 AM

You are welcome - I cannot remember what thread or page all this came out on to point you to - sorry about that - too many threads and too many days :)

No problem, I've been wanting to go back over the older threads anyway and this just gives me more of an incentive ;)

jumpstreet

08-16-2008, 01:09 AM

How about:

E: Scott Peterson

Because no matter what the question, Scott Peterson is at least part of the answer. ;-)

:rolling:

jilly

08-16-2008, 01:12 AM

You say that your opinion is that Cisco would offer an award. Can you site some examples of other huge companies offering rewards in association with crimes where employee's family members are victims when those crimes don't involve the company in any way? I.e., didn't occur on company property, at a company event, etc.

I've seen this opinion posted several times and I'm just curious where the notion comes from that a company would/should involve themselves in this way.

That's a very good question SS. I've seen where companies offer rewards for their employees who have been murdered, ( Michelle Young, Project Energy $10,00) but I don't recall any Company offering a reward for family members of employees.

jilly

08-16-2008, 01:15 AM

SS..I just got back and see you are asking about a large company offering a reward.

Progress Energy offered $10k reward money for information on the Michelle Young case.

Yes but Chart One (employer of Jason) didn't offer a reward.

raisincharlie

08-16-2008, 01:16 AM

Yes but Chart One (employer of Jason) didn't offer a reward.

No - they fired his sorry butt instead.

RaleighNC

08-16-2008, 01:25 AM

My guess is that if he's charged, Cisco will fire him.

I also believe he's on administrative leave because Cisco's attorneys know what is / was in the SW. They have an obligation to protect their OTHER employees. Would you want to work next to BC right now?

This is a "feel good" way to keep him away from their offices and their other employees and to distance themselves from him professionally.

Year end bonuses come out next month - wonder if he'll be needing to pony up more $$$ for a retainer?

SleuthyGal

08-16-2008, 01:27 AM

I wonder just how long they'll allow him to remain on 'administrative leave?' Like, if this thing stretches out into months (oh I hope that doesn't happen, but it could)... would they just keep him on perpetual admin leave? Or do you think at some point (say 3 months out or by 6 months) they'd cut their losses and fire him?

momto3kids

08-16-2008, 01:30 AM

Yes but Chart One (employer of Jason) didn't offer a reward.

I changed it once I reread it. Thanks for clarifying it, just in case I had missed it.

jilly

08-16-2008, 01:31 AM

No - they fired his sorry butt instead.

:toast: You're fast tonite RC! lol

raisincharlie

08-16-2008, 01:33 AM

:toast: You're fast tonite RC! lol

I'm about out of gas Ms. Jilly :blowkiss:

Long hard day watching the Olympics, all that swiming has me tuckered out.

EntreNous

08-16-2008, 01:38 AM

It's been a long day here, too.

Nytol!

:blowkiss:

jilly

08-16-2008, 01:39 AM

I'm about out of gas Ms. Jilly :blowkiss:

Long hard day watching the Olympics, all that swiming has me tuckered out.

LOL - and here I thought you were going to say it was because of all your postings today! Haha

Good job RC! Don't know what we'd do without you around here!:blowkiss:

jilly

08-16-2008, 01:42 AM

It's been a long day here, too.

Nytol!

:blowkiss:

Night EN - me too - gotta watch Swingtown! :saythat:

momto3kids

08-16-2008, 01:47 AM

Roy you might think about that again - his actions are very important. For example if it was indeed his action to walk into a store at 420 am and buy cleaning products and then deny that to LE and they have proof - that action and denial says something pertinent to the case. If he walked into Lifetime Fitness and tried to use his wife's card on the day she is missing well that certainly says something doesn't it. Not all circumstantial evidence is physical in nature -

Wow RC....I just got to catch up on reading the posts tonight and have to say this LTF still has me :waitasec:

Can you imagine how panicked BC was to find out JA wanted to come over right away and he might have grabbed NC card to go by LTF? BC goes in asking about NC, they had to scan the card before they would give any information and it was hers and not his!

OR, he wasn't thinking straight presents his, proceeds to ask about her and stupidly gives hers over??? You know people do stupid things when they are trying to cover their :behind:

SleuthSayer

08-16-2008, 01:48 AM

SS...this is the 1st time I mentioned Cisco helping to offer a reward.

Right, I wasn't referring only to you, but several postings have suggested that there is something suspicious and/or telling about the fact that Cisco has not offered a reward. The implication is that it is typical for big companies to offer up rewards in crimes involving family members of employees. Yet, I have yet to see any point to examples of it being done. It's just not how big companies work.

I also believe he's on administrative leave because Cisco's attorneys know what is / was in the SW. They have an obligation to protect their OTHER employees. Would you want to work next to BC right now?

He is on administrative leave because they don't want the distraction / awkwardness in people dealing with someone who is obviously at least one suspect in this crime. I'm not sure that that they consider him a general threat to other employees. The Cary police certainly know what's in the warrants. They also must not consider him to be a threat to the public at large, since they are letting him roam the town freely.

SleuthyGal

08-16-2008, 01:55 AM

Wow RC....I just got to catch up on reading the posts tonight and have to say this LTF still has me :waitasec:

Can you imagine how panicked BC was to find out JA wanted to come over right away and he might have grabbed NC card to go by LTF? BC goes in asking about NC, they had to scan the card before they would give any information and it was hers and not his!

OR, he wasn't thinking straight presents his, proceeds to ask about her and stupidly gives hers over??? You know people do stupid things when they are trying to cover their :behind:

That indeed would be very stupid. If it's true that no member can get past that front desk without their membership card, and they enforce it 100% of the time no matter what, then if NC didn't have her card she couldn't have gone in, could she? I was trying to think why she might have gone in and the only thing I can think of is if she needed a drink from their water fountain and it was on her path. They might have been amenable to that if they recognized her as a member. Of course that presumes she actually went jogging that fateful Saturday morning and I don't believe that ever happened, IMHO.

And if BC had NC's card and mistakenly tried to use that...well.... hmmmm. Why would he have thought she would have been there at ANY time that morning?

Now my gym, which is much smaller, has either a sign in sheet at very slow times and has a dedicated staff member take member #'s during prime hours. But they get to know you and in my case, some of them know my member # by heart so I don't even have to say my #. There is no card scanning though, so it's a different system.

cygnusx1

08-16-2008, 02:00 AM

Sure - check the dates in which Brad claims he stopped training for Ironman events in his affidavits - then go to his Adventures of Brad webpage - and check his blog entries - he says in his affidavit he quit in June of 2007 - yet on his webpage -he says he is back to training since the MBA was finished- he writes this in January of 2008. There's a lie there somewhere - may seem insignifiacnt but it shows he is capable of lying - infact it proves he is lying - either in the affidavit or on his website - a lie is a lie.

There is not proof of a lie there. According to his entry, it was his first run/ride in 5 months. You don't know whether he continued training after that first session unless you were training with him. SH affidavit #14 says "Brad relaxed his efforts to train for a triathalon..." You don't know to what period he was referring. If he could only run/ride once or twice a week, he may not consider that training. I certainly wouldn't. Or do you consider *any* exercise bewteen January and July to be training?

I might add he also said on his blog he intended to enter the July 20 2008 ironman event in Louisville.

So you never broke a publicly announced New Year's resolution? You never announced a project you were going to do and never finished it or even started it?

At the time of his announcement, his goal may have been to do the Lake Placid event. But is there proof of him actually registering? Is there proof of him training after his 10 Jan entry?

Here's what I see:

85-90% of the affidavits in support of the Rentz's motion are hearsay; "Nancy said Brad did..." There are a few incidents that were personally witnessed but not nearly enough to convince me she was abused.

80-90% of the affidavits in support of Brad are either observations by the affiant, or can be verified by records. Several of those affidavits are by those who would know first-hand if some of the hearsay were true or not; e.g. the preschool teachers say they have never witnessed anything the Rentz affidavits claim nor that BC's behavior/actions are different than most fathers. Certainly if one of them had witnessed the screaming/crying incident claimed in the Rentz affidavits, they would not have assented to an affidavit in support of BC.

If it was a different teacher that witnessed the screaming/crying incident, where is the affidavit from that teacher stating he/she personally witnessed the event?

MM's affidavit in support of BC is essentially cross-examination. He states a lot of hearsay in the one in support of the Rentz's. in the BF affidavit, he states that he did not personally witness *any* of what was claimed in his affidavit for the Rentz's.

If you put the Rentz's affiants on the stand, just about every single statement would be objected to and sustained as hearsay. For those statements that were objected to and overruled, there would be cross-examination that looked like MM's second affidavit.

So I'm on the not-enough-evidence-to-convict side of this debate; SO FAR.

I agree that he is suspect #1 and is most likely the perp. But that is opinion.
Show me the facts that prove that he did it and I'll say "Hang him!":behindbar

But the circumstances of his marriage are not proof of murder.

P.S. Has anybody done an OCR scan of the legal documents so they can be searched easier?