PDA

View Full Version : Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #20


Pages : 1 [2] 3

momto3kids
08-15-2008, 05:12 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:

raisincharlie
08-15-2008, 05:22 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, 05:29 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, 05:33 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, 05:37 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, 05:40 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, 05:42 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, 05:49 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, 05:58 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, 06:07 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, 06:45 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, 06:50 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, 06:51 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.

Roy23
08-15-2008, 06:54 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 defendantís 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, 06:57 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, 07:01 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, 07:01 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, 07:05 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, 07:06 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, 07:09 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 defendantís right to a fair trial.

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

Thanks for the link! :)

carolinalady
08-15-2008, 07:10 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, 07:13 PM
Talk about walking around with a bullseye on your forehead...

Thanks for the link! :)

Yep - and you are welcome. :)

Roy23
08-15-2008, 07:14 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, 07:14 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, 07:14 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 defendantís 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, 07:15 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, 07:16 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, 07:16 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 just went back and re-read that. He was really harsh! All he had to do was pump Brad up. He didn't have to trash Nancy like that to make his point. Odd.

raisincharlie
08-15-2008, 07:22 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, 07:25 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

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

MoonFlwr
08-15-2008, 07:26 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, 07:27 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, 07:28 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, 07:36 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 do not read anything that tells me the murder happened in the house. What makes you think that?

carolinalady
08-15-2008, 07:38 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, 07:38 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, 07:41 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, 07:42 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, 07:51 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, 07:55 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, 07:58 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, 08:00 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, 08:01 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, 08:03 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, 08:03 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, 08:07 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, 08:10 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.

Just curious about how you know this. I may have missed something.

raisincharlie
08-15-2008, 08:12 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.

I agree, I think it was thrown out there to prove one point and in the end made things look a whole lot worse.

Onescout
08-15-2008, 08:15 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, 08:17 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, 08:18 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, 08:29 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, 08:31 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, 08:38 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, 08:44 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, 08:47 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, 08:51 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, 08:51 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, 09:00 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, 09:01 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, 09:05 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, 09:06 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, 09:28 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, 09:30 PM
Come on Fran, this reward stuff is not real powerful stuff.

Whatever you say Roy. ;)

fran

Roy23
08-15-2008, 09:35 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, 09:37 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, 09:41 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, 09:47 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.

Roy23
08-15-2008, 09:55 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, 09:55 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, 09:57 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, 10:01 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, 10:02 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, 10:03 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, 10:05 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, 10:07 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, 10:08 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, 10:08 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, 10:10 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, 10:12 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, 10:13 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, 10:17 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, 10:18 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, 10:21 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, 10:23 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, 10:25 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, 10:30 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, 10:32 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, 10:34 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, 10:35 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, 10:40 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, 10:44 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, 10:46 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 abuserís 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 ďaccidentsĒ
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, 10:46 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, 10:50 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!!!

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!

Roy23
08-15-2008, 10:53 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, 10:54 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, 10:57 PM
I would like to see one proven lie. Anybody have one? Please

raisincharlie
08-15-2008, 10:58 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!!!

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.

fran
08-15-2008, 10:58 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
08-15-2008, 11:01 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:02 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:02 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:05 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:06 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:10 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:11 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:12 PM
"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...

Roy23
08-15-2008, 11:13 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:13 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:16 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:18 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:18 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:20 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:29 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:30 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:31 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:34 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:35 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:39 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:40 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:43 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:44 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:58 PM
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
08-15-2008, 11:59 PM
"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, 12:03 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, 12:04 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, 12:09 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, 12:12 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, 12:15 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, 12:16 AM
Yes but Chart One (employer of Jason) didn't offer a reward.

No - they fired his sorry butt instead.

RaleighNC
08-16-2008, 12:25 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, 12:27 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, 12:30 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, 12:31 AM
No - they fired his sorry butt instead.

:toast: You're fast tonite RC! lol

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 12:33 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, 12:38 AM
It's been a long day here, too.

Nytol!

:blowkiss:

jilly
08-16-2008, 12:39 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, 12:42 AM
It's been a long day here, too.

Nytol!

:blowkiss:

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

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 12:47 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, 12:48 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, 12:55 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, 01:00 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?

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 01:08 AM
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.

I am absolutely sure you will not get in without an ID even as an employee. The only way you can get in and I do not know the process is if you bring a guest. I don't believe this is the case since she was a member.

IMO he had absolutely NO reason to go there unless he had other intentions.

I guess he could go and ask the lady ....
Have you seen my wife ? She is over due in coming home and I had a tennis day planned. She is this tall, and has this color hair, etc. yup and so do the other 123 people that passed by today...LOL

SleuthyGal
08-16-2008, 01:14 AM
Yes other intentions...like showing that he was concerned and looking for her (but only AFTER JA called and wanted to come over). THEN he got real interested in looking for NC and getting out of the house.

BTW...some things that I'm wondering:

- where did NC keep that LTF card anyway? In her purse? In her wallet inside her purse? In a gym bag? And why was her LTF card so convenient for him to pick up (if in fact he did pick it up either inadvertently or on purpose)? My card is always in my gym bag, and my gym bag is usually in my car.

- and when was the last time she used that LTF card anyway? And if the card was put away wherever she kept it then how and why would he have taken it with him? If it was just left on the counter then I guess it's easy enough to grab it...but I don't know why. And where did BC usually keep HIS LTF card? How could he mix them up?

- And this brings me back to her purse...where was that purse that morning? Already in the car? In the house and then placed in the car later? And whose car did he go in to "look for Nancy" that morning?

Hmmmmm....brain on overload.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 01:18 AM
I do know one thing that BC didn't do, because he certainly would have put it in his affidavit if he did..........

First call the hospital to see if an unidentified person came in to be treated or was being treated. Any place NC would have gone jogging that morning she would have been treated at Western Wake, unless she was critical.

Second call CPD since her jogging area was in their district. If NC had been hit or critically injured and air lifted to another hospital CPD would have knowledge of it.

BC simply did NOT do it. Period.

SleuthyGal
08-16-2008, 01:18 AM
I am absolutely sure you will not get in without an ID even as an employee. The only way you can get in and I do not know the process is if you bring a guest.

so if he walked in and said he was looking to see if his wife happened to stop by there at some point he himself could not go past that front desk without a card being scanned to let him through, right? But he could have had the front desk person (or perhaps a mgr) check to see if her card had been scanned at some point...except wait...he has the card on him so that couldn't have happened.

My gym would absolutely let me grab a drink of water if I stopped by and needed one but wasn't staying to work out. But of course different gym, smaller gym, less formal gym.

See the fact that he even thought he should go to that gym is weird. If it's true that NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE can ever get past that front desk, no way/no how and he knew Nancy did not have her membership card with her, then there's no way she could have gone in there. So looking for her there would be pointless. It's a pointless step in the 'looking for NC process.' :bang:

SleuthyGal
08-16-2008, 01:21 AM
I do know one thing that BC didn't do, because he certainly would have put it in his affidavit if he did..........

First call the hospital to see if an unidentified person came in to be treated or was being treated. Any place NC would have gone jogging that morning she would have been treated at Western Wake, unless she was critical.

Second call CPD since her jogging area was in their district. If NC had been hit or critically injured and air lifted to another hospital CPD would have knowledge of it.

BC simply did NOT do it. Period.

Yes! And if you recall, Scott Peterson never called a hospital to see if his VERY pregnant wife, Laci, had maybe gone into labor and was there... see these guys don't think like normal men because they're NOT normal caring humans...they have some screw loose and they can only approximate a caring person, but they miss normal things and it makes them look ever suspicious!

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 01:30 AM
so if he walked in and said he was looking to see if his wife happened to stop by there at some point he himself could not go past that front desk without a card being scanned to let him through, right? But he could have had the front desk person (or perhaps a mgr) check to see if her card had been scanned at some point...except wait...he has the card on him so that couldn't have happened.

My gym would absolutely let me grab a drink of water if I stopped by and needed one but wasn't staying to work out. But of course different gym, smaller gym, less formal gym.

See the fact that he even thought he should go to that gym is weird. If it's true that NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE can ever get past that front desk, no way/no how and he knew Nancy did not have her membership card with her, then there's no way she could have gone in there. So looking for her there would be pointless. It's a pointless step in the 'looking for NC process.' :bang:

This is the question many of us have.
Why did he go there? She hadn't driven, because her car was at home. She jogged with only a stick of gum, no ID or cell, so why would she carry her LTF card?

If it's easy to get information about a member...BC could have called to ask. If he was denied information when he called, then he might have gone to the desk to prove who he was. But he didn't say he called 1st and was denied the information.

He says he spoke to the lady at the desk. What did he ask? He knows NC couldn't get in without an ID.

I don't have any idea where NC or BC kept their cards for LTF. My thing is this comes back to the purse in the car. It all ties in. From the beginning I said the purse is a red flag.

I don't know if he had NC card for LTF or where it was when he went to LFT, but he was in a panic and could easily messed up.

SleuthyGal
08-16-2008, 01:34 AM
See, if he hung around to make phone calls, then he wouldn't be 'out of the house' and it sounds like he did not want JA coming over. So from a 'maximizing the search' standpoint it doesn't make any sense to run around Cary willy-nilly looking (esp. with 2 little kids in tow in their car seats)...but from a "get outta the house so no one comes over" standpoint, it makes perfect sense cause any excuse to get out and stay out is 'good enough' to keep nosy friends away.

The other thing I thought of is if the neighbor across the street from his house (DD?) happened to witness him leaving the house with the kids and putting the kids in the car and if that phone call with JA...the one in which he said the kids "were already in their seats in the car" occurred and THEN he was seen getting the kids out the door and in the car...well THAT would prove he was lying to JA. I was thinking how perfect it would be if JA just happened to call DD at that precise moment, telling her that he said he already had the kids in the car, ready to go, so no thanks, don't need you to come over to watch them...and THEN if DD witnessed him hustling the kids out of the house...

Oh man, that would be an excellent 'gotcha!'

SleuthyGal
08-16-2008, 01:48 AM
This is the question many of us have.
Why did he go there? She hadn't driven, because her car was at home. She jogged with only a stick of gum, no ID or cell, so why would she carry her LTF card?

If it's easy to get information about a member...BC could have called to ask. If he was denied information when he called, then he might have gone to the desk to prove who he was. But he didn't say he called 1st and was denied the information.

He says he spoke to the lady at the desk. What did he ask? He knows NC couldn't get in without an ID.

I don't have any idea where NC or BC kept their cards for LTF. My thing is this comes back to the purse in the car. It all ties in. From the beginning I said the purse is a red flag.

I don't know if he had NC card for LTF or where it was when he went to LFT, but he was in a panic and could easily messed up.

He said she only carried a stick of gum with her so he must have known she didn't have her LTF card with her. AND, if her card was somehow picked up by him as he rushed out of the house (or taken out of her purse or gym bag) then he KNEW she didn't have that card with her. So either way, it makes no sense to go looking at LTF (and certainly looking THERE ahead of going straight to Carey's townhouse community or along the paths?). Makes even less sense. His actions/movements that morning do not make sense.

In my mind there are 2 red flags so far (big flags)

1. Possible HT visit earlier than 6am.

2. Purse in car.

And the LTF visit is a red flag but not as big as #1 if #1 occurred.

We know for sure #2 is true. We don't yet know for sure (sure=info released by LE) that #1 is true.

If #1 is true, goose=cooked. That, to me, is a bigger red flag than #2.

carolinalady
08-16-2008, 07:19 AM
See, if he hung around to make phone calls, then he wouldn't be 'out of the house' and it sounds like he did not want JA coming over. So from a 'maximizing the search' standpoint it doesn't make any sense to run around Cary willy-nilly looking (esp. with 2 little kids in tow in their car seats)...but from a "get outta the house so no one comes over" standpoint, it makes perfect sense cause any excuse to get out and stay out is 'good enough' to keep nosy friends away.

The other thing I thought of is if the neighbor across the street from his house (DD?) happened to witness him leaving the house with the kids and putting the kids in the car and if that phone call with JA...the one in which he said the kids "were already in their seats in the car" occurred and THEN he was seen getting the kids out the door and in the car...well THAT would prove he was lying to JA. I was thinking how perfect it would be if JA just happened to call DD at that precise moment, telling her that he said he already had the kids in the car, ready to go, so no thanks, don't need you to come over to watch them...and THEN if DD witnessed him hustling the kids out of the house...

Oh man, that would be an excellent 'gotcha!'

Bolding is mine, according to JA #9 he was "putting the girls in the car." According to her, he did not say they were already in their seats in the car.

pamlet
08-16-2008, 07:21 AM
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?

The problem is WE don't have evidence against him - other than what other have said what Nancy told him - and assumptions made regarding visits to the grocery store ...

I know that "statistics" are that he probably did it - but the thing that keeps me from completely thinking he did is that fact that there are many on this board that grasp any little piece of info and try to turn it into "evidence" against him ...

I've always thought the affidavits of her friends were odd ... mostly because they were consistent to an extent in their stories and the tone they were told with - as though they all met together the night before and "got their stories straight" ... that to me was kind of telling... as though there is more to their stories - but it involves THEM (the friends) and they don't want to share whatever that is.

Just the Fax
08-16-2008, 07:24 AM
He said she only carried a stick of gum with her so he must have known she didn't have her LTF card with her. AND, if her card was somehow picked up by him as he rushed out of the house (or taken out of her purse or gym bag) then he KNEW she didn't have that card with her. So either way, it makes no sense to go looking at LTF (and certainly looking THERE ahead of going straight to Carey's townhouse community or along the paths?). Makes even less sense. His actions/movements that morning do not make sense.

In my mind there are 2 red flags so far (big flags)

1. Possible HT visit earlier than 6am.

2. Purse in car.

And the LTF visit is a red flag but not as big as #1 if #1 occurred.

We know for sure #2 is true. We don't yet know for sure (sure=info released by LE) that #1 is true.

If #1 is true, goose=cooked. That, to me, is a bigger red flag than #2.

#2 is not a red flag for me. A purse in a locked car means what ?
She was estranged from her controlling husband. Why would she leave her purse out for him on the counter ?

After Brad offered it, the cops took it as it could offer evidence of her plans or associations.....address directory, phone numbers, appointment book, diary, notes, photos, ect.

MoonFlwr
08-16-2008, 07:48 AM
#2 is not a red flag for me. A purse in a locked car means what ?
She was estranged from her controlling husband. Why would she leave her purse out for him on the counter ?

After Brad offered it, the cops took it as it could offer evidence of her plans or associations.....address directory, phone numbers, appointment book, diary, notes, photos, ect.

Yeah, the purse in the car doesn't do it for me, either.

fran
08-16-2008, 08:26 AM
IMO, I believe the people who live in that area are saying the purse in the car is a red flag for them because there's apparently been a rash of car burglaries in the area and residents have been advised not to keep valuables in their cars.

In addition, Nancy knew that Brad had a key to her car and could get anything out of their whenever he wanted to. That's how he got the kid's passports. Nancy used to keep them in her car and while they were at a park or some activity, he went back to the car and took them. (can't remember where, but I read that, IIRC, from one of Nancy's friends)

I'm not saying the purse in the car is a red flag for me, just explaining the mind-set of some others for this being odd.

JMHO
fran

Just the Fax
08-16-2008, 09:10 AM
IMO, I believe the people who live in that area are saying the purse in the car is a red flag for them because there's apparently been a rash of car burglaries in the area and residents have been advised not to keep valuables in their cars.

In addition, Nancy knew that Brad had a key to her car and could get anything out of their whenever he wanted to. That's how he got the kid's passports. Nancy used to keep them in her car and while they were at a park or some activity, he went back to the car and took them. (can't remember where, but I read that, IIRC, from one of Nancy's friends)

I'm not saying the purse in the car is a red flag for me, just explaining the mind-set of some others for this being odd.

JMHO
fran

I understand, but what would Brad gain by planting her purse in her car :waitasec:
Did he want the cops to think she was ready to drive to the park at 7am and was abducted from the driveway ? If that was his story, he would have heard about it.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 09:10 AM
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?



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?


You need to do more reading if you don't see the lies. If you don't think he was lying - so be it. His words not mne.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 09:15 AM
I understand, but what would Brad gain by planting her purse in her car :waitasec:
Did he want the cops to think she was ready to drive to the park at 7am and was abducted from the driveway ? If that was his story, he would have heard about it.

So he had an excuse for not hearing her cell phone ring might be one reason.

Just the Fax
08-16-2008, 09:20 AM
So he had an excuse for not hearing her cell phone ring might be one reason.

True, but do we know from reports the cell was in the purse ?

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 09:20 AM
#2 is not a red flag for me. A purse in a locked car means what ?
She was estranged from her controlling husband. Why would she leave her purse out for him on the counter ?

After Brad offered it, the cops took it as it could offer evidence of her plans or associations.....address directory, phone numbers, appointment book, diary, notes, photos, ect.


Wonder why Brad didn't think of that - he was looking for a phone number for Carey, he also knew where she lived but not what condo - perhaps all of that information could have been found in an address book in Nancy's purse as you say, quite possible. Quess he only went through her things when it actually suited his purposes.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 09:31 AM
True, but do we know from reports the cell was in the purse ?

Not sure of that - JA indicates the purse was in the car and the phone is "there" - whatever that means. But if the phone is in the house - what reason can he give for not answering it - especially after a phone conversation with JA about Nancy's whereabouts ? JA says she called Nancy's cell. No reports of where the phone was other than "there" that I am aware of and JA's reference is open for discussion and how one views it.

I do see the purse as a red flag since her car was in the drive and there had been several break ins of vehicles prior to her going missing. Also Brad was looking for answers to her possible whereabouts, and how to contact a possible running partner - instead of placing calls there is a very good possiblity the answers were very close at hand. If it was Nancy's habit to locke the purse in the car - he knew it - seems odd he didn't bother with it in his search for phone numbers.

Star12
08-16-2008, 09:51 AM
Not sure of that - JA indicates the purse was in the car and the phone is "there" - whatever that means. But if the phone is in the house - what reason can he give for not answering it - especially after a phone conversation with JA about Nancy's whereabouts ? JA says she called Nancy's cell. No reports of where the phone was other than "there" that I am aware of and JA's reference is open for discussion and how one views it.

I do see the purse as a red flag since her car was in the drive and there had been several break ins of vehicles prior to her going missing. Also Brad was looking for answers to her possible whereabouts, and how to contact a possible running partner - instead of placing calls there is a very good possiblity the answers were very close at hand. If it was Nancy's habit to locke the purse in the car - he knew it - seems odd he didn't bother with it in his search for phone numbers.

RC:

Later in the 911 tape, AFTER JA said the "cell phone was there", JA said the cell phone was in the car. So she saw it. NC's cell phone was in the car.

ALSO: What if the real reason BC went to LTF was to cancel his tennis time?
That would give him "cover" for having asked about NC, and it wouldn't show as a call made to LTF which could be verified by cell phone log or TW records. For instance: "I need to cancel my tennis time, and oh, by the way, have you seen my wife?" made to a random employee. "I don't know who it was, don't even remember if it was male or female now".

Just the Fax
08-16-2008, 10:07 AM
RC:

Later in the 911 tape, AFTER JA said the "cell phone was there", JA said the cell phone was in the car. So she saw it. NC's cell phone was in the car.

ALSO: What if the real reason BC went to LTF was to cancel his tennis time?
That would give him "cover" for having asked about NC, and it wouldn't show as a call made to LTF which could be verified by cell phone log or TW records. For instance: "I need to cancel my tennis time, and oh, by the way, have you seen my wife?" made to a random employee. "I don't know who it was, don't even remember if it was male or female now".

My opinion is she was speaking of 'there' as the car or house.
It was never said, but i can't imagine she walked up to the car and peered in while he was right there in the house.

ncnative
08-16-2008, 10:12 AM
Was Brad going to play tennis at the Lochmere Swim & Tennis Club, or the Lifetime Fitness Ctr.? (Assuming there's even a tennis facility at LTF.) IF there is a tennis facility @ LTF, then he could have taken the children with him if he wanted to, assuming the child care facility there was open on Saturdays.

fran
08-16-2008, 10:14 AM
My opinion is she was speaking of 'there' as the car or house.
It was never said, but i can't imagine she walked up to the car and peered in while he was right there in the house.

There was another friend with JA when she called 911 and the 'friend' was freaking out in the background. Perhaps it was the 'friend' who went over to the car in the drive-way AFTER she'd called and Brad said Nancy was out having coffee. THEN she went to JA's and things went from there.

Just an idea,
fran

PS....ANOTHER Red Flag is Brad told two different people TWO different stories on where Nancy was. Jessica - Nancy's out running with Carey. Another friend - Nancy's out having coffee....fran

Just the Fax
08-16-2008, 10:15 AM
Was Brad going to play tennis at the Lochmere Swim & Tennis Club, or the Lifetime Fitness Ctr.? (Assuming there's even a tennis facility at LTF.) IF there is a tennis facility @ LTF, then he could have taken the children with him if he wanted to, assuming the child care facility there was open on Saturdays.

No tennis at Lifetime Fitness

fran
08-16-2008, 10:17 AM
I understand, but what would Brad gain by planting her purse in her car :waitasec:
Did he want the cops to think she was ready to drive to the park at 7am and was abducted from the driveway ? If that was his story, he would have heard about it.

PERHAPS he was HOPING LE would take off on that, she was ready to leave and someone abducted her from there.

The ploy 'she drove off with some guy' has already been used by Craig Stebic, so he was trying a 'new approach?'

Just an idea,
IMHO
fran

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 10:24 AM
RC:

Later in the 911 tape, AFTER JA said the "cell phone was there", JA said the cell phone was in the car. So she saw it. NC's cell phone was in the car.

ALSO: What if the real reason BC went to LTF was to cancel his tennis time?
That would give him "cover" for having asked about NC, and it wouldn't show as a call made to LTF which could be verified by cell phone log or TW records. For instance: "I need to cancel my tennis time, and oh, by the way, have you seen my wife?" made to a random employee. "I don't know who it was, don't even remember if it was male or female now".

I believe in the affidavits he indicates his tennis match was in the morning 9:30 I think - he reports in his affidavit he first postponed it then canceled it. If it was at 9:30 - no need to pop in to lifetime after 1 pm. I will go look - I recall he referenced the time for the tennis match as being in the morning. Will find it.


ETA - Line 176 of Brad's affidavit - he says he has a tennis match for 9:30 - he called to postpone it and at 9:15 to cancel it. No location given or person with whom he was to play with. ( Bet LE knows - funny he is concerned about his tennis match but not concerned his wife has not returned in time to care for the kids aye?).

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 10:25 AM
There was another friend with JA when she called 911 and the 'friend' was freaking out in the background. Perhaps it was the 'friend' who went over to the car in the drive-way AFTER she'd called and Brad said Nancy was out having coffee. THEN she went to JA's and things went from there.

Just an idea,
fran

PS....ANOTHER Red Flag is Brad told two different people TWO different stories on where Nancy was. Jessica - Nancy's out running with Carey. Another friend - Nancy's out having coffee....fran

Now now - brad does not lie...:doh:

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 10:34 AM
Folks - please check the sticky above from Tricia about her appearance tonight on Carol Espy's show.


Tricia has asked for an update. I have given some things but may not have touched on things you all feel to be important. I think she would appreciate your feed back - so add to - or correct what I have listed for her.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 10:42 AM
My opinion is she was speaking of 'there' as the car or house.
It was never said, but i can't imagine she walked up to the car and peered in while he was right there in the house.

I doubt she walked into the house to be able to see a cell phone either.

I actually think Brad told her the purse must be in the car - cell phone too during one of their conversations as she says she called Nancy's cell - Brad may have said he never heard it ring so must be in the car. Which I also believe is why Brad himself put the purse in the car. JMO

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 11:03 AM
Knowing it would look odd to place just the cell phone in the car, he had the purse in there also. He did state he had been trying to get up with NC to JA. If the cell is in the car what better way to say he didn't hear it ringing? He has tangled himself in a web of lies and this is no different.

Back on thread 16 this was a lengthy conversation of what JA stated to the LE. Many felt she stated in the car...I don't remember the exact wording she used.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 11:14 AM
Knowing it would look odd to place just the cell phone in the car, he had the purse in there also. He did state he had been trying to get up with NC to JA. If the cell is in the car what better way to say he didn't hear it ringing? He has tangled himself in a web of lies and this is no different.

Back on thread 16 this was a lengthy conversation of what JA stated to the LE. Many felt she stated in the car...I don't remember the exact wording she used.

I sure wish we had just a few facts. For example, what car did Brad drive to HT between 6 and 7. If Just the Fax has surmised correctly that Brad used Nancy's cell to call his own cell at 6:40 , it would seem reasonable to figure he had the phone with him. What car he drove might be relevant to what really happened between 6 and 7 am.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 11:18 AM
STAR12 quoted on 8/06...If anyone is interested, I just went back and listened to JA's 911 tape. Where she mentions the phone being in the car and her cell phone is there, and then LATER ON she says that NC's cell phone being in the car is definitely weird.

So Nancy's cell phone WAS in her car, and JA was upset that it was in there.

This was the topic of conversation on 8/06 evening postings, about what JA told the LE.
Good catch Star12!

BC concerned about NC's whereabouts? Bull
Knows phone is not with NC
States he is trying to 'get a hold' of NC
Can't find Carey's number

Get the phone, call the recent numbers she conversed with. Carey had just cancelled the morning before...VERY likely Carey's number is on there. How many people did he call looking for NC? Two...

Purse was put in vehicle for alibi IMO.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 11:26 AM
I sure wish we had just a few facts. For example, what car did Brad drive to HT between 6 and 7. If Just the Fax has surmised correctly that Brad used Nancy's cell to call his own cell at 6:40 , it would seem reasonable to figure he had the phone with him. What car he drove might be relevant to what really happened between 6 and 7 am.

I just have a feeling it was his BMW. What I am thinking is he used his car because he knew he would be questioned later about his where abouts and IF someone saw him leaving that am it would have been a red flag to be in NC car.

Based on my household my husband uses my car maybe 1x a year...seat adjustment, windows, etc. The same goes for me...to easy to jump in your own vehicle.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 11:36 AM
I just have a feeling it was his BMW. What I am thinking is he used his car because he knew he would be questioned later about his where abouts and IF someone saw him leaving that am it would have been a red flag to be in NC car.

Based on my household my husband uses my car maybe 1x a year...seat adjustment, windows, etc. The same goes for me...to easy to jump in your own vehicle.

Makes sense but I'm not convinced he used his own car to go to HT or to later "look" for Nancy. He could have true enough, but instinct tells me he used the X5 for one or possibly both of these forrays. Hopefully we will find out soon.

In my household , I use my wife's car quite a bit.

Roy23
08-16-2008, 11:41 AM
The problem is WE don't have evidence against him - other than what other have said what Nancy told him - and assumptions made regarding visits to the grocery store ...

I know that "statistics" are that he probably did it - but the thing that keeps me from completely thinking he did is that fact that there are many on this board that grasp any little piece of info and try to turn it into "evidence" against him ...

I've always thought the affidavits of her friends were odd ... mostly because they were consistent to an extent in their stories and the tone they were told with - as though they all met together the night before and "got their stories straight" ... that to me was kind of telling... as though there is more to their stories - but it involves THEM (the friends) and they don't want to share whatever that is.


That is why is posed the question. I think I see now that everyone here still needs more evidence. I also think all the speculation is good to an extent but I feel we have zero evidence right now of a crime. Brad and Nancy had a horrible marriage and motive is a done deal. I think that Fran will most likely be right about abuse but i think it means nothing until LE shows us something else. Personally, I don't see as much sign of abuse as others. I think if it is any abuse it will be because of financial issues. Nancy was spending all his money in his mind. And that may have been true to some extent.

I think we will find Brad hated that Nancy wasn't so frugal.

Star12
08-16-2008, 11:46 AM
So, sometime between somewhere after midnight and 7 am Nancy goes missing. Brad admits to trips to Harris Teeter at 6:15, 6:40, and 6:45. There is another alleged trip to HT between 4:00 and 4:30, or closer to 4:20. Brad tells reporter that Nancy left to go running between 6:30 and 7:00. Brad says that Nancy called him "from home" (doesn't differentiate between home phone or cell phone, which was found with her purse in her car which was in the driveway). Nancy was to meet JA at 8:00 at JA's house ostensibly to paint, and was to meet up with another friend later in the day. JA calls Brad around 9:00 to find out what's up with Nancy, and Brad says she went running with Carey, and tells JA that he is putting the girls in the car to go look for Nancy, and turns down JA's offer to watch the children. When Nancy failed to make her second meeting with her friend, JA called Wake Med, and then called 911 at about 1:50 to find out what if anything they could do. In the meantime, Brad takes the girls on a drive around town to look for Carey's condo/car, and to Lifetime Fitness, and has to be summoned home to meet with the police. So, then, Brad was gone from around 9:00 until around 2:00? The police ask to take a look around, and Brad allows them, "cooperating". No one, other than Brad, had seen Nancy since she left the party after midnight. Brad later tells DD, who lives across the street, that he and his elder child had seen her leave, and DD posts that information on her blogspot. Brad did not call the police, he did not call the hospital, he did not call Nancy's parents. He joined in one search in which he complained of being "eaten alive" by the bugs - he was wearing long sleeves and shorts. He made one statement to the local press, and talked telephonically with one reporter. He did not go to any press conferences at the Cary Police Department. He did not go to any of the local memorials. He apparently obtained counsel when the body was discovered.

Anything else?

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 11:54 AM
So, sometime between somewhere after midnight and 7 am Nancy goes missing. Brad admits to trips to Harris Teeter at 6:15, 6:40, and 6:45. There is another alleged trip to HT between 4:00 and 4:30, or closer to 4:20. Brad tells reporter that Nancy left to go running between 6:30 and 7:00. Brad says that Nancy called him "from home" (doesn't differentiate between home phone or cell phone, which was found with her purse in her car which was in the driveway). Nancy was to meet JA at 8:00 at JA's house ostensibly to paint, and was to meet up with another friend later in the day. JA calls Brad around 9:00 to find out what's up with Nancy, and Brad says she went running with Carey, and tells JA that he is putting the girls in the car to go look for Nancy, and turns down JA's offer to watch the children. When Nancy failed to make her second meeting with her friend, JA called Wake Med, and then called 911 at about 1:50 to find out what if anything they could do. In the meantime, Brad takes the girls on a drive around town to look for Carey's condo/car, and to Lifetime Fitness, and has to be summoned home to meet with the police. So, then, Brad was gone from around 9:00 until around 2:00? The police ask to take a look around, and Brad allows them, "cooperating". No one, other than Brad, had seen Nancy since she left the party after midnight. Brad later tells DD, who lives across the street, that he and his elder child had seen her leave, and DD posts that information on her blogspot. Brad did not call the police, he did not call the hospital, he did not call Nancy's parents. He joined in one search in which he complained of being "eaten alive" by the bugs - he was wearing long sleeves and shorts. He made one statement to the local press, and talked telephonically with one reporter. He did not go to any press conferences at the Cary Police Department. He did not go to any of the local memorials. He apparently obtained counsel when the body was discovered.

Anything else?


Don't know if Brad is away from the house from after 9 to when he returns at LE's request around 3 pm. He apparently calls JA somewhere around 1225 time frame saying he had fed girls lunch and was loading them in the car to go look for Nancy. Where exactly he was to make the call to JA to get Carey's phone number is up in the air. He could have been home, he could have taken the girls for a special Chick Fil A lunch - he tries to imply he is home at the time. He doesn't want any help with watching the kids - he could have been some place other than home which is why he could not accept help watching the kids.

Star12
08-16-2008, 11:55 AM
That is why is posed the question. I think I see now that everyone here still needs more evidence. I also think all the speculation is good to an extent but I feel we have zero evidence right now of a crime. Brad and Nancy had a horrible marriage and motive is a done deal. I think that Fran will most likely be right about abuse but i think it means nothing until LE shows us something else. Personally, I don't see as much sign of abuse as others. I think if it is any abuse it will be because of financial issues. Nancy was spending all his money in his mind. And that may have been true to some extent.

I think we will find Brad hated that Nancy wasn't so frugal.

Well, I would think that NC being murdered would be pretty much evidence of a crime.

As far as needed "more evidence", we are not LE, not DA, not Jury. We would like to know more, but what is to come will be from the search warrants, and from the ME's office. Otherwise, I don't think there is a whole lot more evidence we can uncover other than what we already know.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 11:59 AM
So, sometime between somewhere after midnight and 7 am Nancy goes missing. Brad admits to trips to Harris Teeter at 6:15, 6:40, and 6:45. 2 trips
There is another alleged trip to HT between 4:00 and 4:30, or closer to 4:20. Brad tells reporter that Nancy left to go running between 6:30 and 7:00. Brad says that Nancy called him "from home" (doesn't differentiate between home phone or cell phone, which was found with her purse in her car which was in the driveway). Nancy was to meet JA at 8:00 at JA's house ostensibly to paint, and was to meet up with another friend later in the day. JA calls Brad around 9:00 9:25to find out what's up with Nancy, and Brad says she went running thinks she might have with Carey, and tells JA that he is putting the girls in the car 12:30 to go look for Nancy, and turns down JA's offer to watch the children. When Nancy failed to make her second meeting with her friend, JA called Wake Med, and then called 911 at about 1:50 to find out what if anything they could do. In the meantime, Brad takes the girls on a drive around town to look for Carey's condo/car, and to Lifetime Fitness, and has to be summoned home to meet with the police. So, then, Brad was gone from around 9:00 12:30until around 2:003:00? The police ask to take a look around, and Brad allows them, "cooperating". No one, other than Brad, had seen Nancy since she left the party after midnight. Brad later tells DD, who lives across the street, that he and his elder child had seen her leave, and DD posts that information on her blogspot. Brad did not call the police, he did not call the hospital, he did not call Nancy's parents. He joined in one search in which he complained of being "eaten alive" by the bugs - he was wearing long sleeves and shorts. He made one statement to the local press, and talked telephonically with one reporter. He did not go to any press conferences at the Cary Police Department. He did not go to any of the local memorials. He apparently obtained counsel when the body was discovered.

Anything else?

My changes are in red, but this is the highlights. Yes.

Star12
08-16-2008, 12:02 PM
My changes are in red, but this is the highlights. Yes.

Thanks, Mom. That's exactly what I wanted.

Just the Fax
08-16-2008, 12:02 PM
Makes sense but I'm not convinced he used his own car to go to HT or to later "look" for Nancy. He could have true enough, but instinct tells me he used the X5 for one or possibly both of these forrays. Hopefully we will find out soon.

In my household , I use my wife's car quite a bit.

I think he used the sedan to 'run his early errands'. Apparently it was in the garage (X-5 was in the driveway per JA). He loaded the body into the trunk from the privacy of the garage and drove this to dump the body and to then to make the HT trips .....had to be the same car in case it was seen driving out of the neighborhood after 6 am.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 12:10 PM
I think he used the sedan to 'run his early errands'. Apparently it was in the garage (X-5 was in the driveway per JA). He loaded the body into the trunk from the privacy of the garage and drove this to dump the body and make the HT trips .....had to be the same car in case it was seen driving out of the neighborhood after 6 am.

Then would you agree, if he drove his own car, and you have surmised he used two cell phones - his own to receive a call and Nancy's to make a call to him at 6:40 - and you think the purse was left in the X5 by Nancy that he would have also had to get into the X5 to take the cell phone and at some point later also return the cell phone to the purse in the X5 ? From corrections above concerning JA's 911 call - she does say the cell phone is in the car as well.

Lets hope he left some prints and spit on that cell phone.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 12:11 PM
I think he used the sedan to 'run his early errands'. Apparently it was in the garage (X-5 was in the driveway per JA). He loaded the body into the trunk from the privacy of the garage and drove this to dump the body and make the HT trips .....had to be the same car in case it was seen driving out of the neighborhood after 6 am.

I think the sedan was used in the morning trips for the reasons you gave, as well IIRC JA stated NC vehicle was in the drive on the 911.

I don't know if he would have told LE about HT, but I sense he told them about it just in case someone saw him leaving or coming home from the trips he made.

License tag bolt missing on the sedan is still a mystery...is it because he removed his tag for a particular reason or LE removed it...but would LE have not put the bolt back in it?

ncnative
08-16-2008, 12:18 PM
Ahh, spit! I haven't thought of spit.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 12:21 PM
Then would you agree, if he drove his own car, and you have surmised he used two cell phones - his own to receive a call and Nancy's to make a call to him at 6:40 - and you think the purse was left in the X5 by Nancy that he would have also had to get into the X5 to take the cell phone and at some point later also return the cell phone to the purse in the X5 ? From corrections above concerning JA's 911 call - she does say the cell phone is in the car as well.

Lets hope he left some prints and spit on that cell phone.

I think the sedan was used the entire time. The missing bolt on the license tag is key to me. Either he removed his tag or the LE did for some reason, but it was missing after the SW.

I think the purse and phone were in the house when he bagan his runs. IF he does have a call from NC to him at the store that was stagged he had the opportunity to do it with it being at his disposal in the home. We still don't know if he did run to HT at 6:45, as well as we don't know which phone NC used to supposedly call him.

I believe he went thru her purse trying to prepare an alibi, and began by putting the purse and cell in her vehicle. This would be so he could state he didn't hear her cell ringing as well.

So all in all I think he got what he needed from her purse, put it in her vehicle to begin his alibi.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 12:26 PM
IIRC they got a blood sample from BC. If this is correct and they did get a sample of blood, is this normal or a step beyond what is normally done?

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 12:27 PM
Ahh, spit! I haven't thought of spit.

LE did take a DNA sample from Brad at 3am on the 16th. The easiest sample to collect is saliva. Usually need someone with medical training to take blood and a clean environment. Saliva is easy - closed tube - stick a swab in his mouth and wipe around on the inside of the cheek and re-insert into sealed tube. Just thinking...

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 12:28 PM
IIRC they got a blood sample from BC. If this is correct and they did get a sample of blood, is this normal or a step beyond what is normally done?

The press reported it as either blood or saliva - no confirmation of which it was really.

Star12
08-16-2008, 12:30 PM
LE did take a DNA sample from Brad at 3am on the 16th. The easiest sample to collect is saliva. Usually need someone with medical training to take blood and a clean environment. Saliva is easy - closed tube - stick a swab in his mouth and wipe around on the inside of the cheek and re-insert into sealed tube. Just thinking...

Think they might also have pulled some blood for typing?

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 12:37 PM
Think they might also have pulled some blood for typing?

Can do typing on the spot. Possible they took both but without the darned warrants we won't know for quite some time. They would not need saliva to make an adequate comparison to any on a cell phone for instance.

Lets hope they also looked under his sleeves - perhaps a blood draw would give them this opportunity.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 12:39 PM
The press reported it as either blood or saliva - no confirmation of which it was really.

:online: I'm looking...I could have sworn I saw it just recently where it stated blood was taken. When I saw this I thought it was a step beyond the norm..IDK

jilly
08-16-2008, 12:43 PM
I think Brad would have used his car for his errands and then gone looking with the kids in Nancy's vehicle which I'm sure would have been equipped with the kid's car seats.

Anderson
08-16-2008, 12:43 PM
Is it at all possible that someone that NC knew, trusted and had run with before came over to go jogging with her? Is it possible that this other person is responsible? Nancy and SH had trained together before. Perhaps her purse and cell were in the car in anticipation of going to run. She usually did take her car.

This wouldn't rule out the murder taking place at the house. Rather than taking her car, they put her body into another car. That way BC stays somewhat clean.

This may be a far out scenario, but I thought I would throw it out there.

DogWood
08-16-2008, 12:44 PM
:online: I'm looking...I could have sworn I saw it just recently where it stated blood was taken. When I saw this I thought it was a step beyond the norm..IDK

Here's one reference:

...and a judge ordered Brad Cooper to submit blood and saliva samples for DNA testing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,384622,00.html

Good morning!

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 12:46 PM
Here's one reference:

...and a judge ordered Brad Cooper to submit blood and saliva samples for DNA testing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,384622,00.html

Good morning!

Thanks DogWood - but I do wonder how they, Fox, knew - sealed warrant.

DogWood
08-16-2008, 12:49 PM
Thanks DogWood - but I do wonder how they, Fox, knew - sealed warrant.

Oh so true! :)

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 12:51 PM
Is it at all possible that someone that NC knew, trusted and had run with before came over to go jogging with her? Is it possible that this other person is responsible? Nancy and SH had trained together before. Perhaps her purse and cell were in the car in anticipation of going to run. She usually did take her car.

This wouldn't rule out the murder taking place at the house. Rather than taking her car, they put her body into another car. That way BC stays somewhat clean.

This may be a far out scenario, but I thought I would throw it out there.

Anderson - the very concept of murder is IMO far out. At this point and with what little is known, this theory has as much validity as any other posted. Worth speculating on, not impossible at all.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 12:56 PM
Oh so true! :)

It is not beyond possibility that a local reporter knows just through their contacts at LE - it is possible both were collected. Seems a bit redundant to me but who knows. Studying on it - blood seems more likely - gotta roll up a sleeve to do that. :D

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 12:56 PM
Here's one reference:

...and a judge ordered Brad Cooper to submit blood and saliva samples for DNA testing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,384622,00.html

Good morning!

Thanks Dogwood...I owe you one:highfive:

Anderson
08-16-2008, 01:02 PM
Anderson - the very concept of murder is IMO far out. At this point and with what little is known, this theory has as much validity as any other posted. Worth speculating on, not impossible at all.

Yes, I wish there was more information. At least LE knows much more than we do and is hopefully on to something by now.

I am very new at this obviously. I wonder if websleuths helps at all with the investigation. When I look at the time, effort and experience that many of you bring to this discussion, it seems that websleuths may contribute to the investigation as a sort of brain storming factory. Have you ever received any recognition for past cases?

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 01:05 PM
It is not beyond possibility that a local reporter knows just through their contacts at LE - it is possible both were collected. Seems a bit redundant to me but who knows. Studying on it - blood seems more likely - gotta roll up a sleeve to do that. :D

If NC was found with blood under her nails, it could be they got a sample from BC to see if there was a match. I don't know the length of time to do a blood match with dry blood. But I do know within an hour (actually less)they will have his blood type back to crossmatch.

Anderson
08-16-2008, 01:16 PM
If NC was found with blood under her nails, it could be they got a sample from BC to see if there was a match. I don't know the length of time to do a blood match with dry blood. But I do know within an hour (actually less)they will have his blood type back to crossmatch.

Remember that BC and his lawyers asked for this information to be released. They were sure that it would clear him. That is one reason why I think that it may be a more complicated scenario.

DogWood
08-16-2008, 01:18 PM
It is not beyond possibility that a local reporter knows just through their contacts at LE - it is possible both were collected. Seems a bit redundant to me but who knows. Studying on it - blood seems more likely - gotta roll up a sleeve to do that. :D

:D

And it could just be 'and' was used instead of 'or'.

Anderson
08-16-2008, 01:19 PM
:D

And it could just be 'and' was used instead of 'or'.

Yes, the media makes a lot of mistakes.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 01:19 PM
Yes, I wish there was more information. At least LE knows much more than we do and is hopefully on to something by now.

I am very new at this obviously. I wonder if websleuths helps at all with the investigation. When I look at the time, effort and experience that many of you bring to this discussion, it seems that websleuths may contribute to the investigation as a sort of brain storming factory. Have you ever received any recognition for past cases?


WS has received some accolades for involvement in cases and lots of work has been done on missing persons cases in particular. Occasionally you will note a sticky that details a wish by , for example, Dateline, wanting details, information and so on about cold cases, and other things. It is also known that various LE have in the past monitored the forums across the web.

It is a good brainstorming exercise, and to give credit - often local people in an area where a crime has occurred can and often do provide information, perhaps they think it unimportant , but it does end up helping LE.

Anderson
08-16-2008, 01:23 PM
WS has received some accolades for involvement in cases and lots of work has been done on missing persons cases in particular. Occasionally you will note a sticky that details a wish by , for example, Dateline, wanting details, information and so on about cold cases, and other things. It is also known that various LE have in the past monitored the forums across the web.

It is a good brainstorming exercise, and to give credit - often local people in an area where a crime has occurred can and often do provide information, perhaps they think it unimportant , but it does end up helping LE.

Thanks! Very interesting. Although they may not be able to use the information that BC's former girlfriend from Canada has provided here, I would think that they would find it interesting. They would not have had this sort of personal insight without websleuths.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 01:23 PM
Remember that BC and his lawyers asked for this information to be released. They were sure that it would clear him. That is one reason why I think that it may be a more complicated scenario.

Maybe that is exactly what the defense lawyer wanted you to believe.

This attempt to obtain an uncompleted autopsy and the notes was a calculated gamble - nothing more. The defense lawyer knew it would be snowing in hades before a judge would agree to force the ME to hand this over with an ongoing investigation taking place. Neither the ME, LE/DA, are obligated to give Mr. Cooper anything related to this investigation, not even for a civil matter. 100 % Bluster

Except a copy of the search warrant for the home and cars and collection of his DNA - I should add.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 01:26 PM
Maybe the LE didn't want to take any chances while waiting for DNA results so they did the blood sample. He is from Canada after all and if he was a flight risk they had the blood sample in their back pocket to use against him. I can see them wanting to wait for the DNA result because of it being precise, but the blood could be a 'just in case' needed.

Dry Blood can be used to get a blood type.

In 1915 the Italian scientist Leone Lattes developed a simple method for determining the blood type of a dried bloodstain.

Anderson
08-16-2008, 01:30 PM
Maybe that is exactly what the defense lawyer wanted you to believe.

This attempt to obtain an uncompleted autopsy and the notes was a calculated gamble - nothing more. The defense lawyer knew it would be snowing in hades before a judge would agree to force the ME to hand this over with an ongoing investigation taking place. Neither the ME, LE/DA, are obligated to give Mr. Cooper anything related to this investigation, not even for a civil matter. 100 % Bluster

Thanks RC! Wheels within wheels.:)

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 01:35 PM
RC...does the blood have to be taken out of the arm and not just a finger prick?

Was this perhaps a way to make BC roll his sleeves to expose the possible scratches? Most likely he grabbed a long sleeve shirt to answer the LE request while at SH home. He was wearing long sleeves in the photo of him leaving with the car seats.

Smart move if this was the case.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 01:35 PM
Thanks RC! Wheels within wheels.:)

You watch some of these trials Anderson - you will see some most amazing things attempted by defense lawyers. I'm not criticizing them, they are a necessary item in a trial, and they are required to vigorously defend their client - even if it means going far out there to do so. But you will be amazed at times just how far out that far out can be.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 01:37 PM
RC...does the blood have to be taken out of the arm and not just a finger prick?

Was this perhaps a way to make BC roll his sleeves to expose the possible scratches? Most likely he grabbed a long sleeve shirt to answer the LE request while at SH home. He was wearing long sleeves in the photo of him leaving with the car seats.

Smart move if this was the case.

Booyah - roll up the sleeve, they are going to take a vial. Yes, smart move if they wanted a look at his arms, maybe too late but still a smart move.

Anderson
08-16-2008, 01:42 PM
You watch some of these trials Anderson - you will see some most amazing things attempted by defense lawyers. I'm not criticizing them, they are a necessary item in a trial, and they are required to vigorously defend their client - even if it means going far out there to do so. But you will be amazed at times just how far out that far out can be.

Well, I have to admit I'm fascinated :crazy:

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 01:44 PM
Well, I have to admit I'm fascinated :crazy:

Keep a supply of nerf bricks handy to throw at your screen :D

It is indeed fascinating to watch, mind blowing at times.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 01:45 PM
Booyah - roll up the sleeve, they are going to take a vial. Yes, smart move if they wanted a look at his arms, maybe too late but still a smart move.


So IF there are scratch marks, and IF the LE had blood drawn this could be in the LE's back pocket if BC decides to head to Canada because the DNA won't be back yet?

Wouldn't this would be enough to name him if this is the scenario, and his blood matches something they found on NC. This would hit 2 birds with 1 stone.

macd
08-16-2008, 01:46 PM
Then would you agree, if he drove his own car, and you have surmised he used two cell phones - his own to receive a call and Nancy's to make a call to him at 6:40 - and you think the purse was left in the X5 by Nancy that he would have also had to get into the X5 to take the cell phone and at some point later also return the cell phone to the purse in the X5 ? From corrections above concerning JA's 911 call - she does say the cell phone is in the car as well.

Lets hope he left some prints and spit on that cell phone.

I think the cell phone companies keep records on which towers send/receive phone calls. If two cell phones were used, the records may show they were in the same location at the time of the call.

EntreNous
08-16-2008, 01:46 PM
STAR12 quoted on 8/06...If anyone is interested, I just went back and listened to JA's 911 tape. Where she mentions the phone being in the car and her cell phone is there, and then LATER ON she says that NC's cell phone being in the car is definitely weird.

So Nancy's cell phone WAS in her car, and JA was upset that it was in there.

This was the topic of conversation on 8/06 evening postings, about what JA told the LE.
Good catch Star12!

BC concerned about NC's whereabouts? Bull
Knows phone is not with NC
States he is trying to 'get a hold' of NC
Can't find Carey's number

Get the phone, call the recent numbers she conversed with. Carey had just cancelled the morning before...VERY likely Carey's number is on there. How many people did he call looking for NC? Two...

Purse was put in vehicle for alibi IMO.
With all due respect I just listened to the 911 again twice looking for this and it is not there. Twice JA says that the cell phone is "there". She never says the phone is in the car. The first time she mentions the phone being "there" is at 2:53 on the tape. The second time that she mentions the phone she says and I quote, "...and the fact that her car is still at home and her cell phone is there is a little weird...". This comment is made at 3:43 on the tape. Both times JA mentions NC's cell phone it is in the same sentence with her car but in neither does she say the phone is in the car.

Also at 1:29 on the tape a knock can be heard. Not sure if this is a knock on a door but soon after at 1:44 it sounds like possibly a chair being scooted on the floor. At 2:22 you can hear a man in the background say something but it's garbled and I can't make it out. It comes immediately after dispatch asks JA if BC has been violent with NC in the past. At first I thought the man in the background said something like, "very violent" but upon listening to it a few times it sounds more like "very rapid"? I don't know.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 01:50 PM
So IF there are scratch marks, and IF the LE had blood drawn this could be in the LE's back pocket if BC decides to head to Canada because the DNA won't be back yet?

Wouldn't this would be enough to name him if this is the scenario, and his blood matches something they found on NC. This would hit 2 birds with 1 stone.

LE is not going to name him as a POI or suspect, no matter what evidence they have. An arrest will be made without ever naming anyone in the press IMO. LE is not going to arrest until there is an indictment and the DA is not going to send it to a GJ until they believe the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

As to fleeing to Canada - I suspect if LE is focusing on Brad - his name has been added to the watch lists at the borader crossings. It is also possible LE could have seized his documents during the search warrant execution.

Roy23
08-16-2008, 01:51 PM
Well, I would think that NC being murdered would be pretty much evidence of a crime.

As far as needed "more evidence", we are not LE, not DA, not Jury. We would like to know more, but what is to come will be from the search warrants, and from the ME's office. Otherwise, I don't think there is a whole lot more evidence we can uncover other than what we already know.


Totally agree. I guess I meant evidence tying Brad to something physical. Either at the house, the scene, or the car. I am in wait mode. Look forward to seeing what they got.

Anderson
08-16-2008, 01:52 PM
Keep a supply of nerf bricks handy to throw at your screen :D

It is indeed fascinating to watch, mind blowing at times.

:martini: :)

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 01:54 PM
I think the cell phone companies keep records on which towers send/receive phone calls. If two cell phones were used, the records may show they were in the same location at the time of the call.

Just the Fax checked the towers - there is one tower in that area. The records will reflect only the tower the call was processed through. If the phones were anywhere within the radius of that tower - of course they would be reported as being processed through the same tower - but the tower does not give an exact location of the phone when the call is either made or received. Unless they subscribed to a GPS service - the tower will not give the location of the phone.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 01:56 PM
With all due respect I just listened to the 911 again twice looking for this and it is not there. Twice JA says that the cell phone is "there". She never says the phone is in the car. The first time she mentions the phone being "there" is at 2:53 on the tape. The second time that she mentions the phone she says and I quote, "...and the fact that her car is still at home and her cell phone is there is a little weird...". This comment is made at 3:43 on the tape. Both times JA mentions NC's cell phone it is in the same sentence with her car but in neither does she say the phone is in the car.

Also at 1:29 on the tape a knock can be heard. Not sure if this is a knock on a door but soon after at 1:44 it sounds like possibly a chair being scooted on the floor. At 2:22 you can hear a man in the background say something but it's garbled and I can't make it out. It comes immediately after dispatch asks JA if BC has been violent with NC in the past. At first I thought the man in the background said something like, "very violent" but upon listening to it a few times it sounds more like "very rapid"? I don't know.

EN...on the 6th we had a lengthy discussion on this and some did hear her say something about the car. I did not hear it, but some did.

We know JA had not been in NC home to state it was there. Many of us felt she or someone looked in NC car and saw or heard it. All anyone has to do it call it and it either lit up or was heard going off with a call coming in.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 02:02 PM
LE is not going to name him as a POI or suspect, no matter what evidence they have. An arrest will be made without ever naming anyone in the press IMO. LE is not going to arrest until there is an indictment and the DA is not going to send it to a GJ until they believe the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

As to fleeing to Canada - I suspect if LE is focusing on Brad - his name has been added to the watch lists at the borader crossings. It is also possible LE could have seized his documents during the search warrant execution.

I agree the LE doesn't want to name him at all so they can keep all the information they have close to them and not anything to the defense. But on the other hand we did not hear anything about his passport...remember BC gave us a copy of his passport on the 24th? To me it shows he has it.

I am saying if push gets to shove the LE might have to show this card and name him if he tries to make a run for it.

EntreNous
08-16-2008, 02:03 PM
EN...on the 6th we had a lengthy discussion on this and some did hear her say something about the car. I did not hear it, but some did.

We know JA had not been in NC home to state it was there. Many of us felt she or someone looked in NC car and saw or heard it. All anyone has to do it call it and it either lit up or was heard going off with a call coming in.

I agree about calling it and seeing it light up or hearing it ring. I was just trying to keep the facts straight on the 911 call. We have so few hard facts on the case, It would be the pits to get sidetracked on something that wasn't there.

Star12
08-16-2008, 02:06 PM
With all due respect I just listened to the 911 again twice looking for this and it is not there. Twice JA says that the cell phone is "there". She never says the phone is in the car. The first time she mentions the phone being "there" is at 2:53 on the tape. The second time that she mentions the phone she says and I quote, "...and the fact that her car is still at home and her cell phone is there is a little weird...". This comment is made at 3:43 on the tape. Both times JA mentions NC's cell phone it is in the same sentence with her car but in neither does she say the phone is in the car.

Also at 1:29 on the tape a knock can be heard. Not sure if this is a knock on a door but soon after at 1:44 it sounds like possibly a chair being scooted on the floor. At 2:22 you can hear a man in the background say something but it's garbled and I can't make it out. It comes immediately after dispatch asks JA if BC has been violent with NC in the past. At first I thought the man in the background said something like, "very violent" but upon listening to it a few times it sounds more like "very rapid"? I don't know.

It is not distinct but I definitely heard "the fact that her car is at home and her cell phone in there is a little wierd" at the 3:43 - 3:48 mark. This tape has obviously been edited, as well, so some of the noise may be editing.

Other ears?

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 02:06 PM
I agree the LE doesn't want to name him at all so they can keep all the information they have close to them and not anything to the defense. But on the other hand we did not hear anything about his passport...remember BC gave us a copy of his passport on the 24th? To me it shows he has it.

I am saying if push gets to shove the LE might have to show this card and name him if he tries to make a run for it.

Perhaps he kept it in his office at Cisco and perhaps LE looked specifically for it there under the warrant issued on the 25th to Cisco.

EntreNous
08-16-2008, 02:09 PM
Yeah, I noticed all the editing. I wonder which friend she's referring to that is/was hysterical?

Anderson
08-16-2008, 02:14 PM
Perhaps he kept it in his office at Cisco and perhaps LE looked specifically for it there under the warrant issued on the 25th to Cisco.

I still wonder if they searched the office for communication with other people that he MAY have planned it with (one of the far-out scenarios :crazy:). Given his expertise, I would assume that he could cover his tracks, but he may have thought this was a safe place to store information.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 02:17 PM
I agree about calling it and seeing it light up or hearing it ring. I was just trying to keep the facts straight on the 911 call. We have so few hard facts on the case, It would be the pits to get sidetracked on something that wasn't there.


I do have a few facts...

BC was searching on Monday the 14th with long sleeves, a cap, and shorts. He did have a short conversation with someone from my home (I will not say me or who) and did ask a direct question. This was done at an outside location where BC was searching.

I saw a missing or broken bolt for his license tag, or just didn't bolt 1 end on. It was hanging about 2" lower on 1 side.

He does wear short sleeves, I have seen him recently. He has had company at his home, a male.

Both vehicles have been at his home visible at least 1 time since the SW

He has now shut all blinds and covered the window panes surrounding his front door.

EntreNous
08-16-2008, 02:20 PM
I do have a few facts...

BC was searching on Monday the 14th with long sleeves, a cap, and shorts. He did have a short conversation with someone in my home (I will not say me or who) and did ask a direct question.

I saw a missing or broken bolt for his license tag, or just didn't bolt 1 end on. It was hanging about 2" lower on 1 side.

He does wear short sleeves, I have seen him recently. He has had company at his home, a male.

Both vehicles have been at his home visible at least 1 time since the SW

He has now shut all blinds and covered the window panes surrounding his front door.

EEK, you just gave me the chills with the info. I don't suppose you can divulge the direct question, eh?

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 02:24 PM
Perhaps he kept it in his office at Cisco and perhaps LE looked specifically for it there under the warrant issued on the 25th to Cisco.

IDK...he did the copy of his passport on the 24th or at least it is stamped that.
I would have thought he was already put on leave by this time and not gained entry back into Cisco once NC was identified.

Wasn't the SW signed for on the morning of the 16th and not executed until the 25th?

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 02:26 PM
I still wonder if they searched the office for communication with other people that he MAY have planned it with (one of the far-out scenarios :crazy:). Given his expertise, I would assume that he could cover his tracks, but he may have thought this was a safe place to store information.

Something led LE there Anderson, no doubt about that. LE obtained that warrant for Cisco roughly 5 days after the search of the house was complete. There had to have been something found at the house or through the autopsy that led them to Cisco. We have seen no warrants for the cell phone astral data collection or for searches of computer hard drives taken from the home. It is possible these warrants could have been enclosed with the warrant for the house. 5 days could be enough to have processed at least some of this data maybe - it may have revealed transfer of data to Brad's Cisco office - its possible.

Between the search of the home there was also the release of all these affidavits - even though related to a civil matter - LE looked at them harder than we did. The issue of the VoIP - could relate directly back to Cisco. IMO, this was a major mess up by Brad and his lawyers - LE got a lot of information to work with from all of those affidavits. Error I think as there is littel doubt something took LE to CIsco's front door and it wasn't just because Brad worked there.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 02:26 PM
EEK, you just gave me the chills with the info. I don't suppose you can divulge the direct question, eh?

No, I can't. But I will say it is what ended the conversation.

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 02:29 PM
IDK...he did the copy of his passport on the 24th or at least it is stamped that.
I would have thought he was already put on leave by this time and not gained entry back into Cisco once NC was identified.

Wasn't the SW signed for on the morning of the 16th and not executed until the 25th?

No the warrant for Cisco was signed the 21st - they would have had 48 hours to execute it. So the 23rd at the latest. It does seem unlikely it was confiscated before the affidavits - my error.

I made an error above - Cisco on the 21st the undisclosed warrant was on the 25th.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 02:31 PM
No the warrant for Cisco was signed the 21st - they would have had 48 hours to execute it. So the 23rd at the latest. It does seem inlikely it was confiscated before the affidavits - my error.

I made an error above - Cisco on the 21st the undisclosed warrant was on the 25th.

There are so many times and dates it can get confusing. See I was wrong also when the SW were signed.

One thing is it appears BC has his passport.

Star12
08-16-2008, 02:32 PM
No, I can't. But I will say it is what ended the conversation.

:eek::sick:

Anderson
08-16-2008, 02:34 PM
Something led LE there Anderson, no doubt about that. LE obtained that warrant for Cisco roughly 5 days after the search of the house was complete. There had to have been something found at the house or through the autopsy that led them to Cisco. We have seen no warrants for the cell phone astral data collection or for searches of computer hard drives taken from the home. It is possible these warrants could have been enclosed with the warrant for the house. 5 days could be enough to have processed at least some of this data maybe - it may have revealed transfer of data to Brad's Cisco office - its possible.

Between the search of the home there was also the release of all these affidavits - even though related to a civil matter - LE looked at them harder than we did. The issue of the VoIP - could relate directly back to Cisco. IMO, this was a major mess up by Brad and his lawyers - LE got a lot of information to work with from all of those affidavits. Error I think as there is littel doubt something took LE to CIsco's front door and it wasn't just because Brad worked there.

Both your comments on VOIP and mistakes made by BC and his lawyers make so much sense. I still wonder what they found!

raisincharlie
08-16-2008, 02:35 PM
There are so many times and dates it can get confusing. See I was wrong also when the SW were signed.

One thing is it appears BC has his passport.

One other thing to note about this RKAB posted a few days ago - when a Canadian is applying for US citizenship, the Canadians do impose a one year moratorium basically in which the person is not allowed to return to Canada. LE may not have had to take his passport depending on what stage he is currently in. Maybe he is already - "blacklisted" from entry to Canada - so it wouldn't matter - if he runs it will have to be to somewhere other than Canada.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 02:38 PM
One other thing to note about this RKAB posted a few days ago - when a Canadian is applying for US citizenship, the Canadians do impose a one year moratorium basically in which the person is not allowed to return to Canada. LE may not have had to take his passport depending on what stage he is currently in. Maybe he is already - "blacklisted" from entry to Canada - so it wouldn't matter - if he runs it will have to be to somewhere other than Canada.

If he is having to stay here and can't go to Canada I hope he feels TRAPPED like NC did.

He is soon going to find out what trapped really feels like:behindbar

Anderson
08-16-2008, 02:46 PM
No, I can't. But I will say it is what ended the conversation.

Wow. :hand:

It must be strange to have this happen in your own neighborhood. Take care!

PS

Thanks for sharing all of your local knowledge, it adds so much.

Roy23
08-16-2008, 02:47 PM
No, I can't. But I will say it is what ended the conversation.


Intersting!!!!!:)

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 02:49 PM
I think he used the sedan to 'run his early errands'. Apparently it was in the garage (X-5 was in the driveway per JA). He loaded the body into the trunk from the privacy of the garage and drove this to dump the body and to then to make the HT trips .....had to be the same car in case it was seen driving out of the neighborhood after 6 am.

I agree with you on this. I really do believe he used the sedan trunk for her body. I just don't have an ounce of me that believes he used the SUV for it.

EntreNous
08-16-2008, 02:51 PM
Wow. :hand:

It must be strange to have this happen in your own neighborhood. Take care!

No doubt. I didn't realize you were that close to this MT3K. Did you know Nancy?

I agree it's best to stay :silenced: with the public.

lunarmodule
08-16-2008, 03:04 PM
Are both cars still in Brad's possession? If they are, I assume they were both processed and there was no evidence discovered. The same with the house. Either he was very careful or the house was not the scene, right? I guess they can't seal the house or seize the cars without evidence or strong probably cause but if LE thinks the crime may have occurred there they must be anxious with him still there.

momto3kids
08-16-2008, 03:10 PM
Wow. :hand:

It must be strange to have this happen in your own neighborhood. Take care!

PS

Thanks for sharing all of your local knowledge, it adds so much.

I live right outside of NC neighborhood. I actually live right in the center of all the places mentioned...NC home, JA home, LTF, HT, Bella's day care, Java Jive, running areas, St Francis church, Regency, car wash, etc.

I have to admit any place mentioned I can basically walk to. Between my husband and myself combined we have been in the area for 52 years. Every place mentioned I know someone who works there or goes there including my self and my family.

I have a friend who lives down the street from BC. Just last Saturday I had a house full of kids and found out later 1 of them lived near BC. It is something I can't get away from because I am surrounded by it.

ncnative
08-16-2008, 03:11 PM
Wow, Mom. You finally let one slip, didn't you? So you say that someone at your home talked to Brad by phone on the 14th. Hmmmm...We WILL be sleuthing on that comment. And since i live so nearby. Hmmm...you have a girl that is going back to college. Did one of your children babysit for the Coopers? nah. That's not exciting enough.

Listen, go have a few glasses of wine and come back. :drink: We need to talk. :talker:

ncnative
08-16-2008, 03:15 PM
Also, Mom--I live only a few blocks from BC. I'm wondering which neighbor of mine you are! :D