Brad Cooper - Timeline, Behavior, Interview, & Evidence Inconsistencies

[SleuthyGal]

I decided to start a thread on this topic since everyone is reading/analyzing the statements given to police vs. the affidavit statements vs. friends/family statements and of course combing through the details of the 3 search warrants. Rather than this good info getting buried into a general thread I thought this topic could stand on its own. Discuss!

[SleuthyGal]

Clearly his statements don't match each other, the affidavit, or the friends. He has put himself into a corner with all his inconsistencies:

- What was he 'doing' from 4am to 6am?

- And what was he 'doing' from 7am to 9am?

- Why was Katie up at 4am? Did she go back to sleep? What time?

- What was Nancy 'doing' from 4am to 6am?

- How many loads of laundry were done by Nancy that Sat morning? (he says she was doing laundry).

- How many loads of laundry were done by Brad that Sat? What exactly did he wash? Was the laundry folded and put away? Is/was there lint in the dryer? Was there lint in the garbage? Did police check for this?

- Brad said he 'noticed' they were out of laundry detergent that Sat morning so he went to get some. He also told police in his interviews that Nancy asked him to get some. Which is it? He says he purchased laundry detergent sometime around 6:40am. Is that true? Is there a receipt to prove this?

- If Nancy was 'doing laundry' but he noticed they were 'out of detergent,' what time did he notice this? If Nancy left to go running around 7am, then how exactly was she able to do laundry without detergent? Why did he say she was 'doing laundry' last time he SAW her? Exactly what time did he last see her that morning?

- Why does he state in his affidavit he was to play tennis at 9:30am but fails to mention it ON THE DAY police interview him and then fails to mention it again the next day?

- He tells police he was 'cleaning' from around 9am to 1pm. But he also tells them at 12:30pm, when Nancy had failed to return from her 'run,' he got worried and 'went looking for her.' So which is it? Cleaning from 12:30pm to 1pm? Looking for Nancy from 12:30pm to 1pm?

- How often did Nancy scrub her floors? She likely did it when she got back from HH on or around 7/5 when she found the house a complete mess. 7 or less days later Brad is 'scrubbing floors'? Did he scrub all the floors? Downstairs and upstairs?

- Where/when/what caused those scratches on the back of Brad's neck? Were the scratches there Friday night at the party? Did the cop ASK Brad about the scratches and what the scratches were from? Did ANYONE observe these scratches on the back of his neck Friday night at the BBQ?

- When exactly did Brad 'clean out' his trunk? Which vacuum did he use?

- Why did police have Nancy dressed in "blue/gray running shoes" on their flyers? Who told them she was wearing these particular shoes?

- Why did Brad go to his office sometime between the dates of 7/12 and 7/18? What day/time? What did he do there? How long was he there?

[fran]

FWIW, I don't think Brad thought the grocery receipt would show WHAT he bought. I also don't think he counted on LE checking the HT's 'video' tapes.

Brad told LE he went to the grocery store AFTER daylight.

LE checked out his story and when they saw Brad on tape at the store AFTER daylight, he wasn't buying detergent, but milk or juice. BECAUSE Brad told LE he and Nancy had been up at 4 a.m., LE apparently decided to check the HT's tape further and saw Brad there just after 4 a.m. buying DETERGENT.

Why would he lie to LE?

It's widely known with Nancy's friends and family that she always carried her keys and cell phone wherever she went. YET, her husband said she never took anything when she went running, except a piece of gum.

Why would Brad lie to LE about that?

Nancy's friends said Brad never did ANY housework. As a matter of fact, Nancy was gone for a week and Brad didn't even do the dishes in the sink from the day she left. Yet, Brad claims he did 4 hours of housework the very morning Nancy went missing. How convenient.

Why would Brad again lie to LE?

JMHO
fran

[SleuthyGal]

>LE apparently decided to check the HT's tape further and saw Brad there just after 4 a.m. buying DETERGENT.

FYI, LE has not confirmed or denied any info regarding a 4am HT visit. I know *we* have this info because of Momto3kids, but it's not in any official statement or affidavit. But yes, he did lie. Many times.

[fran]

>LE apparently decided to check the HT's tape further and saw Brad there just after 4 a.m. buying DETERGENT.

FYI, LE has not confirmed or denied any info regarding a 4am HT visit. I know *we* have this info because of Momto3kids, but it's not in any official statement or affidavit. But yes, he did lie. Many times.


Yes, we do know it, the HT's 4:20 a.m. laundry detergent visit and so does Brad. Thus his request for video from the store. He's already working on a defense for that lie.;)

Just sayin'
fran

[fran]

Nancy's friends said Nancy kept all important papers and such in her vehicle and kept the key secure so that Brad couldn't get to her papers etc. YET, Nancy's keys were located on the table as you enter the house.

Again, Brad said Nancy normally didn't take anything with her except a stick of gum.

Nancy's dad, upon his arrival in Cary, told LE how he'd taught Nancy to use her keys as a weapon when she ran, which was again consistant with Nancy's friends, NOT Brad.

JMHO
fran

[Star12]

Nancy's friends said Nancy kept all important papers and such in her vehicle and kept the key secure so that Brad couldn't get to her papers etc. YET, Nancy's keys were located on the table as you enter the house.

Again, Brad said Nancy normally didn't take anything with her except a stick of gum.

Nancy's dad, upon his arrival in Cary, told LE how he'd taught Nancy to use her keys as a weapon when she ran, which was again consistant with Nancy's friends, NOT Brad.

JMHO
fran

So now I wonder...if Nancy's cell phone was seen by Jessica in the SUV on Saturday - and if Nancy ran with her keys - yet the cell phone and keys were found in the house? And the spare SUV key was secured and locked in the SUV, along with the passports -- and at the initial LE interview BC had both of the girls passports. And what about her diary, which she used to document BC's actions? And I wonder if LE was able to take prints from the LV purse. The glove box? Oh, we have learned a lot, and we have learned there is soooo much we still don't know.

[fran]

So now I wonder...if Nancy's cell phone was seen by Jessica in the SUV on Saturday - and if Nancy ran with her keys - yet the cell phone and keys were found in the house? And the spare SUV key was secured and locked in the SUV, along with the passports -- and at the initial LE interview BC had both of the girls passports. And what about her diary, which she used to document BC's actions? And I wonder if LE was able to take prints from the LV purse. The glove box? Oh, we have learned a lot, and we have learned there is soooo much we still don't know.

Every time you read the SWs again, you pick up something else. Like when LE did the initial SW of the house, they found evidence of the discord between Nancy and Brad which in turn made them do the SW on his offices at Cisco to look for further 'evidence' of marital problems between the victim and the husband.

JMHO
fran

[SleuthyGal]

Yes, and they learned that he had taken at least one child's passport to his office to keep from his wife (and possibly he had both kids' passports there at one time). Makes sense they'd want to examine the spot where he says he spends 40+ hrs per week!

[fran]

Yes, and they learned that he had taken at least one child's passport to his office to keep from his wife (and possibly he had both kids' passports there at one time). Makes sense they'd want to examine the spot where he says he spends 40+ hrs per week!

OH, according to the SW, he did have BOTH of the children's passports. He said he took them from Nancy because she was going to leave for Canada and she wouldn't agree to any of the alternative arrangements he suggested. He also said he offered to let her have one but she didn't take it.:rolleyes:

Yah know? Like all of their financial problems were because of Nancy.:mad:

JMHO
fran

[Star12]

Yes, and they learned that he had taken at least one child's passport to his office to keep from his wife (and possibly he had both kids' passports there at one time). Makes sense they'd want to examine the spot where he says he spends 40+ hrs per week!

Didn't I read that, when they were going to get the passports, that BC kept putting it off, and putting it off. And then when they finally got them, he took one when he decided that Nancy was NOT going to take the children to Canada. He felt the children were his possessions

What was there here that was so compelling that he could not go back to Canada and get a different job? Just what were his priorities? Certainly not the welfare of his children and their mother. The divorce was going to happen no matter what.

Can you get a replacement passport for a child without both parents signatures? Just wondering.

[Anderson]

Great idea for a thread. This comment pertains to his behaviour.

In the probable cause affidavit it mentions that Brad confirmed that Nancy had planned to move back to Canada, and it then it states that "these plans were changed by Brad." It goes on to say that "Brad stated that he had suggested multiple alternatives and she had refused all the offered alternatives." The next bit goes on to discuss the passports, and why he had taken one.

I am really bothered by this. I know that it is speculation on my part, but the subtext here seems to be 'I gave her a chance and she didn't take it. This is her fault.' I wonder what the other alternatives were. This also further demonstrates his controlling and abusive behaviour.

Just my opinion.

[Star12]

Great idea for a thread. This comment pertains to his behaviour.

In the probable cause affidavit it mentions that Brad confirmed that Nancy had planned to move back to Canada, and it then it states that "these plans were changed by Brad." It goes on to say that "Brad stated that he had suggested multiple alternatives and she had refused all the offered alternatives." The next bit goes on to discuss the passports, and why he had taken one.

I am really bothered by this. I know that it is speculation on my part, but the subtext here seems to be 'I gave her a chance and she didn't take it. This is her fault.' I wonder what the other alternatives were. This also further demonstrates his controlling and abusive behaviour.

Just my opinion.

My opinion, too, Anderson. See my signature line.

[Anderson]

My opinion, too, Anderson. See my signature line.

It seems so bizarre to me. Can't he hear how he sounds? I suppose not. I read some of the affidavits again.The comments made by Nancy's friends make more sense as we get new information.

[booradley]

I decided to start a thread on this topic since everyone is reading/analyzing the statements given to police vs. the affidavit statements vs. friends/family statements and of course combing through the details of the 3 search warrants. Rather than this good info getting buried into a general thread I thought this topic could stand on its own. Discuss!

Sleuthy" thanks so much for doing this, I don't have a lot of time to devote to WS right now, but I am very interested in seeing that justice is done for NC bella and katie. I wish more people would start threads so that we didn't have to wade through the general one. Ya know? Like back in the days of the scott and laci case. Anyway, thanks, Boo

[Anderson]

Here are some inconsistencies, although I suspect that in most cases he was just omitting information in his statements. The police interviews took place before he wrote the affidavit. He certainly could have left much more information out of his affidavit. I think that he emphasized certain information to try to make himself look innocent for the custody hearing.

Brad states in his affidavit that he was getting ready for the girls to get up around 6:30. He doesn't mention anything about taking care of Katie at 4am. This doesn't make sense to me. However, he does not state the time that he woke up that morning in the affidavit. He only states what happened after 6:15 in his affidavit.

Brad states that he made two trips to HT after 6am. He does not say that he didn't make a third trip earlier than 6 (around 4:15?). He is leaving information out here. We know this from Mom. Again, he only mentions what happened after 6:15. He does not say that he didn't go out before 6. I wonder if he has talked to LE about this and if they have asked why he did not include this information in his original statement.

In his affidavit he states that he had a single indiscretion and slept with a woman (Heather) once. The recent information in the probable cause affidavit suggests that there was an affair with another woman in his MBA program. Nancy's friends have emphasized the other extramarital affair with this woman in their statements. Apparently NC had a call from the other woman. Have a look at the France pictures on his website (not that they prove anything). There may have been even more women. There was a picture of BC, NC and the children at his graduation in late 2007. I can't remember where I saw this, but perhaps someone else will. I do remember the look of discomfort on Nancy's face in that photo (at least I thought so). I suspect that it was very awkward for her to be there with the other woman, even if the affair was over. So, I feel that there was more than one indiscretion. This is an inconsistency.

A bit off topic, but I wonder how Heather Heider-Metour (couldn't resist the hyphen) feels now. Look what can happen when you sleep with your (ex) best friend's husband!

[raisincharlie]

A few notes:

How about we take at look at what elevates the old hinky meter:

1. A man claims to have spilled gas in the boot of his car a few weeks back and for some reason on the very day his wife goes missing decides it is a good time to "vacuum" up that nasty spill.

2. A man who leaves the house a mess a week before decides on the same day his wife goes missing that he will turn into super maid and clean the house. Apparently including washing floors, vacuuming and doing laundry, even possibly cleaning up his wife's bathroom.

3. A good guy who gets up at 4 am to help care for the youngest child takes her into his office area so his wife can do laundry but he is the one who happens to notice they are out of laundry soap so he runs to the store on at least two confirmed occasions to buy milk and laundry soap.

4. A guy who has red marks on his neck on the same day his wife goes missing which are noticed by an LE officer but doesn't respond when asked about them.

5. A guy who doesn't seem to bother to answer his wife's cell phone even when she is hours late, even after she isn't home to take the kids so he can go play tennis. A guy who wasn't concerned to find his wife's cell phone and keys in the house when the rest of the world seemed to know she always took those things with her when she ran.

6. A guy who cooperates with LE until his wife's body is found and her death is ruled a homicide - suddenly feels he better get a criminal defense lawyer on his side.

7. A guy who busted for saying his wife was running with a certain person on the very day she goes missing also shows up to tell LE on the same day she did not run with Nancy and had no plans to run with her that day.

8. A guy who admits they had been arguing most of Friday about money and painting and a messy house and the next day his wife just disappears.

9. A guy who packs up his kids and runs over to spend the night with a friend on the same day his wife's death is ruled a homicide.

10. A guy who doesn't call 911 but decides its best to drag two kids out to look for his wife on the day she goes missing - thinking he just might see her on one of those trails while he is driving about (going to vacuum the car out).

11. A guy who quesses at what his wife was wearing when she went out to run on that fateful day.

And this is just from a few pages of an affidavit - bet LE knows a whole lot more than what was in that affidavit,

[EntreNous]

Didn't one of NC's friends say that Brad's alternative to her taking the girls back to Canada was that he keep Bella and she keep Katie? Didn't the friend say BC told NC this and told her which child she should take because he knew she like that child more? I can't remember which friend said NC confided in them about that.

But he tells LE he suggested each of them keep a passport, not each of them keep a child.

Is it too late and I'm just punchy or wasn't that stated somewhere?

[SleuthyGal]

Yes one of the friends DID state this in their affidavit. Sorry I don't remember who said it, but YES it was told by NC to one of the friends. However, there's no way to verify the accuracy since the person who said it was umm...murdered.

[EntreNous]

Yes one of the friends DID state this in their affidavit. Sorry I don't remember who said it, but YES it was told by NC to one of the friends. However, there's no way to verify the accuracy since the person who said it was umm...murdered.

Thanks SG, I was hoping I hadn't gone completely crazy and made that up in my head.:crazy:

[EntreNous]

I found it. It was both Michelle Simmons and Hannah Prichard. MS stated that Brad recommended they each take a girl and be done. HP stated NC told her they should each take a girl adding that BC had told NC, 'didn't she love Bella more anyway?'.

[SleuthyGal]

I want to know why there is an inconsistency of when Brad told SH about the affair with HM. In one case we hear of this being told in Dec 07. Then in the depo Brad says he told SH about a month before his depo. SH got divorced 3+ years ago (likely because he knew his wife was cheating, among other issues).

So which is it?

Do you think there is a correlation between SH removing info about his 'friend' Brad and their activities together on his blog and the timing of being told about the affair a month before the depo?

[Anderson]

I want to know why there is an inconsistency of when Brad told SH about the affair with HM. In one case we hear of this being told in Dec 07. Then in the depo Brad says he told SH about a month before his depo. SH got divorced 3+ years ago (likely because he knew his wife was cheating, among other issues).

So which is it?

Do you think there is a correlation between SH removing info about his 'friend' Brad and their activities together on his blog and the timing of being told about the affair a month before the depo?

I think Brad filled Scott in on the details of the affair a month before the deposition. Before that he probably just glossed over the details. I don't know this of course. Just a thought.

[water_dancing]

It's widely known with Nancy's friends and family that she always carried her keys and cell phone wherever she went. YET, her husband said she never took anything when she went running, except a piece of gum.

Why would Brad lie to LE about that?

Hi all,

I'm new here but have been following this for weeks.

My question about the above is if it was well known that she always carried her cell phone when running then why when BC talk to HP about needing CC's phone number the 1st thing HP suggested was that he should check NC's phone for the number? If BC was calling about NC not returning from a run and he needed the number of the person NC allegedly was running with and NC was known to ALWAYS have her phone, why was it suggested to check something that wouldn't even be there if that were true? :waitasec:

Also, if BC had NC's phone in the house when talking to HP and remarking that it was locked, how did JA see it in the car?

WD

[jmflu]

Hi all,

I'm new here but have been following this for weeks.

My question about the above is if it was well known that she always carried her cell phone when running then why when BC talk to HP about needing CC's phone number the 1st thing HP suggested was that he should check NC's phone for the number? If BC was calling about NC not returning from a run and he needed the number of the person NC allegedly was running with and NC was known to ALWAYS have her phone, why was it suggested to check something that wouldn't even be there if that were true? :waitasec:WD

My theory is that she was afraid Brad had done something to Nancy in the house, that she never went running, so her cell would be there.

[water_dancing]

My theory is that she was afraid Brad had done something to Nancy in the house, that she never went running, so her cell would be there.

OK let go on that theory. According to the affidivits, this call happened around noon. So HP get this call and for whatever reason, she feel that something has happened. HP suggests to BC to check NC's phone to "test" BC b/c she fears NC never went running and therefore the phone was there. Her fear comes true and the phone is there. BC states while still on the phone about it being locked. Then why was HP next step not to immediately call 911? 911 wasn't called for over an hour and that was by JA.

[jmflu]

OK let go on that theory. According to the affidivits, this call happened around noon. So HP get this call and for whatever reason, she feel that something has happened. HP suggests to BC to check NC's phone to "test" BC b/c she fears NC never went running and therefore the phone was there. Her fear comes true and the phone is there. BC states while still on the phone about it being locked. Then why was HP next step not to immediately call 911? 911 wasn't called for over an hour and that was by JA.

Perhaps she was talking to herself, telling herself not to get paranoid, but her hinky meter was certainly heading to "off the chart." (Certainly NC's phone being there wasn't proof NC was dead!) At some point she decided she could not ignore all the things that had added up.

[shack]

FWIW, I don't think Brad thought the grocery receipt would show WHAT he bought. I also don't think he counted on LE checking the HT's 'video' tapes.

Brad told LE he went to the grocery store AFTER daylight.

LE checked out his story and when they saw Brad on tape at the store AFTER daylight, he wasn't buying detergent, but milk or juice. BECAUSE Brad told LE he and Nancy had been up at 4 a.m., LE apparently decided to check the HT's tape further and saw Brad there just after 4 a.m. buying DETERGENT.

Why would he lie to LE?

It's widely known with Nancy's friends and family that she always carried her keys and cell phone wherever she went. YET, her husband said she never took anything when she went running, except a piece of gum.

Why would Brad lie to LE about that?

Nancy's friends said Brad never did ANY housework. As a matter of fact, Nancy was gone for a week and Brad didn't even do the dishes in the sink from the day she left. Yet, Brad claims he did 4 hours of housework the very morning Nancy went missing. How convenient.

Why would Brad again lie to LE?

JMHO
fran

Here is a link to the visits to the store. 6:22 is quite a bit difference than the just after 4 that you suggest and he bought milk. This is what gets people confused either you didn't check the evidence or you just made up the story.

[momto3kids]

OK let go on that theory. According to the affidivits, this call happened around noon. So HP get this call and for whatever reason, she feel that something has happened. HP suggests to BC to check NC's phone to "test" BC b/c she fears NC never went running and therefore the phone was there. Her fear comes true and the phone is there. BC states while still on the phone about it being locked. Then why was HP next step not to immediately call 911? 911 wasn't called for over an hour and that was by JA.

WD...my notes are limited on this since I was writing as fast as I could, but the pace was going fast on times and questions.

a) HP says, I was told that NC went jogging between 6:30 and 7am. Probably getting coffee. This was HP 1st call. (I don't have the time listed this call took place)
b) 1:17 HP calls BC back and told him to go thru NC phone for CC phone #
c) BC calls me back to say the phone is locked

If memory serves me right...she is the one drilled about times and why 1x she used her husbands phone to call. It was an early morning call she had placed, I don't have the time listed, but her response was I just did. No reason in particular.

HP & JA spoke after this to decide where to call and what to do, and make sure they were both hearing the same thing.

[sunflowers]

hi everybody, thanks for doing the threads this way. could somebody remind me of who was supposed to have used Nancy's cell the morning she disappeared? I thought I heard something about Jessica's husband or somebody using Nancy's phone, and can't remember any of the details. thanks

[Maja]

hi everybody, thanks for doing the threads this way. could somebody remind me of who was supposed to have used Nancy's cell the morning she disappeared? I thought I heard something about Jessica's husband or somebody using Nancy's phone, and can't remember any of the details. thanks

As I recall, SH was accused by the CPD of making himself an alibi by using NC's phone to make phone calls to BC.

[Star12]

As I recall, SH was accused by the CPD of making himself an alibi by using NC's phone to make phone calls to BC.

Mike Hiller.

[fran]

Here is a link to the visits to the store. 6:22 is quite a bit difference than the just after 4 that you suggest and he bought milk. This is what gets people confused either you didn't check the evidence or you just made up the story.

FWIW, I do NOT make up stories when it comes to murder.

The information about the 4 to 4:30 a.m. visit to the store by BC is at the beginning of this forum. It was a part of the puzzle first brought to our attention here on Websleuths and carried by the MSMs, also at the beginning.

Either one believes the 4 a.m. visit or they don't. I happen to believe it.

JMHO
fran

PS...When LE was questioned about this early morning visit, they neither denied it nor confirmed it. I still believe it. ;)

PPS...The NON-suspect hasn't addressed the early morning visit to the store. He's just confirmed two visits after daylight...fran

[jmflu]

FWIW, I do NOT make up stories when it comes to murder.

The information about the 4 to 4:30 a.m. visit to the store by BC is at the beginning of this forum. It was a part of the puzzle first brought to our attention here on Websleuths and carried by the MSMs, also at the beginning.

Either one believes the 4 a.m. visit or they don't. I happen to believe it.

JMHO
fran

PS...When LE was questioned about this early morning visit, they neither denied it nor confirmed it. I still believe it. ;)

PPS...The NON-suspect hasn't addressed the early morning visit to the store. He's just confirmed two visits after daylight...fran


Good to see you back, Fran! (I was wondering where your response was to this charge!)

[Anderson]

Good to see you back, Fran! (I was wondering where your response was to this charge!)

I don't think Fran has ever really left us! :) It is always good to see Fran's posts.

[momto3kids]

Here is a link to the visits to the store. 6:22 is quite a bit difference than the just after 4 that you suggest and he bought milk. This is what gets people confused either you didn't check the evidence or you just made up the story.
No story was made up. This story is mine and I stand by it until I am proved wrong, which BTW hasn't been done yet.

I posted...
a) BC went to a local store to purchase some kind of detergent and/or bleach
b) later retracted bleach when I was told it wasn't bleach by my family member
c) I posted 4am store purchase
d) I then put 4:20 as time when I had a person who saw the video confirm time
e) I described clothing. Jacket and cap which is what BC wore.
f) Not a self-check out register used. BC didn't use self check out.
g) Made a 6am purchase of milk. He did purchase milk at 6am.
h) I later confirmed HT, once the media felt this was the store. I didn't post store originally because I needed some privacy for my family member.
i) I announced on a radio show, BC had returned to HT to have copies of his VIC transactions. Later his attorneys showed those copies.
j) the chief will not confirm or deny a 4am purchase of bleach which I had already retracted (bleach). But responds bleach or any cleaning supplies. Cleaning supplies were not asked about.
k) I told it was the BMW sedan after some said no way, it is the sedan LE is focused on.

So in a nutshell, I haven't lead anyone wrong yet. I don't intend to either. Maybe he bought some other type of detergent or cleaning supply, maybe carpet cleaner/detergent for his trunk. If he purchased it at 4am, LE checked at 3pm on a hot July day, the dampness and smell will be long gone.

A purchase was made at 4:20. BC wasn't up with a sick child, he states he was getting ready for the girl's to get up around 6:30 when he saw they were out of detergent. What did he do from 4-6 am?

[Skittles]

SG: Thanks for starting this thread! I was going to suggest that since we may be entering a period of little news in this case, we should go back and fill in new information from the deposition and custody hearing into the Timelines sticky thread. This is a great place to hash out some of those details.

[Skittles]

hi everybody, thanks for doing the threads this way. could somebody remind me of who was supposed to have used Nancy's cell the morning she disappeared? I thought I heard something about Jessica's husband or somebody using Nancy's phone, and can't remember any of the details. thanks

Star12 is correct, it was Mike H.

[fran]

No story was made up. This story is mine and I stand by it until I am proved wrong, which BTW hasn't been done yet.

I posted...
a) BC went to a local store to purchase some kind of detergent and/or bleach
b) later retracted bleach when I was told it wasn't bleach by my family member
c) I posted 4am store purchase
d) I then put 4:20 as time when I had a person who saw the video confirm time
e) I described clothing. Jacket and cap which is what BC wore.
f) Not a self-check out register used. BC didn't use self check out.
g) Made a 6am purchase of milk. He did purchase milk at 6am.
h) I later confirmed HT, once the media felt this was the store. I didn't post store originally because I needed some privacy for my family member.
i) I announced on a radio show, BC had returned to HT to have copies of his VIC transactions. Later his attorneys showed those copies.
j) the chief will not confirm or deny a 4am purchase of bleach which I had already retracted (bleach). But responds bleach or any cleaning supplies. Cleaning supplies were not asked about.
k) I told it was the BMW sedan after some said no way, it is the sedan LE is focused on.

So in a nutshell, I haven't lead anyone wrong yet. I don't intend to either. Maybe he bought some other type of detergent or cleaning supply, maybe carpet cleaner/detergent for his trunk. If he purchased it at 4am, LE checked at 3pm on a hot July day, the dampness and smell will be long gone.

A purchase was made at 4:20. BC wasn't up with a sick child, he states he was getting ready for the girl's to get up around 6:30 when he saw they were out of detergent. What did he do from 4-6 am?

Thanks mom, that's the information I was referring to.

BC purchased cleaning products at 4:20 a.m.

BC confirmed, he was in fact UP AND AWAKE at 4 a.m., but I do NOT believe he was taking care of a fussy child. I believe he was dumping NC's body and stopped for cleaning supplies to 'stage' the crime scene to make it NOT appear as a crime scene. He's also CONFIRMED the mornings CLEANING of the house.

Like Det Daniels said, BC's stories do NOT match. Inconsistancies! :eek:

JMHO
fran

PS....Anderson is right, I never left, just didn't have enough computer time to post. (I just moved) jmfluThe main thing I have to say is, "I still think BC is guilty!":(

[jmflu]

Thanks mom, that's the information I was referring to.

BC purchased cleaning products at 4:20 a.m.

BC confirmed, he was in fact UP AND AWAKE at 4 a.m., but I do NOT believe he was taking care of a fussy child. I believe he was dumping NC's body and stopped for cleaning supplies to 'stage' the crime scene to make it NOT appear as a crime scene. He's also CONFIRMED the mornings CLEANING of the house.

Like Det Daniels said, BC's stories do NOT match. Inconsistancies! :eek:

JMHO
fran

PS....Anderson is right, I never left, just didn't have enough computer time to post. (I just moved) jmfluThe main thing I have to say is, "I still think BC is guilty!":(

Me too, Fran, me too. :(

[ncsu95]

FWIW, I do NOT make up stories when it comes to murder.

The information about the 4 to 4:30 a.m. visit to the store by BC is at the beginning of this forum. It was a part of the puzzle first brought to our attention here on Websleuths and carried by the MSMs, also at the beginning.

Either one believes the 4 a.m. visit or they don't. I happen to believe it.

JMHO
fran

PS...When LE was questioned about this early morning visit, they neither denied it nor confirmed it. I still believe it. ;)

PPS...The NON-suspect hasn't addressed the early morning visit to the store. He's just confirmed two visits after daylight...fran


Ummmm, yes he has. His lawyers put out the video tape showing when he went, and he discussed it in his deposition. I think it is safe to say he didn't go to HT at 4 a.m. He says he didn't, and there would be video evidence that he did if he did. I doubt he would lie about it since it would be so easy to prove.

[Maja]

Star12 is correct, it was Mike H.


Were there, in fact, any calls made from NC's phone after 6 AM? Did JA and CPD see NC's purse and phone in her X5?

I am still not clear on the allegation by CPD to MH in reference to him possibly making himself an alibi and what he meant by the CPD playing "good cop/bad cop" I need help understanding this.

[ncsu95]

Were there, in fact, any calls made from NC's phone after 6 AM? Did JA and CPD see NC's purse and phone in her X5?

I am still not clear on the allegation by CPD to MH in reference to him possibly making himself an alibi and what he meant by the CPD playing "good cop/bad cop" I need help understanding this.


It is believed that a call was made from NCs cell phone to BCs cell phone while he was in route or at Harris Teeter. What is not know is if these calls were made from the same cell tower or a different one. If they were from different towers, the phones would have to be in different locations. This would mean that either NC made the call to BC (which impacts the theory that she was already dead by 6:30 am), BC somehow set up his phone to auto answer and made a call from hers to his (although, this would be difficult if they were on separate towers due to the timing of the video of him at HT...unlikely that he could make the call, put the phone back and get to HT in that short of time), or that he had someone help him by making the call from her. They questioned MH and did the good cop / bad cop routine trying to get him to admit helping BC by making this and other calls from her phone. I'm not sure what the other calls are.

The other part to this is that her phone is locked, and according to BC, was locked when JA asked him about on the morning of the 12th. It's reasonable to assume that NC locked her phone to keep him from seeing personal information on the phone. It is not known if she actually did lock it, to what level she locked it if she did (supposedly, there is a lock level that still allows you to make calls), or if he added a lock on the 12th (or knew her password) to make it seem that the call couldn't have been done by anyone other than NC.

I tend to believe that she had it locked and he didn't know the password. It would make sense given the state of the relationship.

[Anderson]

It is believed that a call was made from NCs cell phone to BCs cell phone while he was in route or at Harris Teeter. What is not know is if these calls were made from the same cell tower or a different one. If they were from different towers, the phones would have to be in different locations. This would mean that either NC made the call to BC (which impacts the theory that she was already dead by 6:30 am), BC somehow set up his phone to auto answer and made a call from hers to his (although, this would be difficult if they were on separate towers due to the timing of the video of him at HT...unlikely that he could make the call, put the phone back and get to HT in that short of time), or that he had someone help him by making the call from her. They questioned MH and did the good cop / bad cop routine trying to get him to admit helping BC by making this and other calls from her phone. I'm not sure what the other calls are.

The other part to this is that her phone is locked, and according to BC, was locked when JA asked him about on the morning of the 12th. It's reasonable to assume that NC locked her phone to keep him from seeing personal information on the phone. It is not known if she actually did lock it, to what level she locked it if she did (supposedly, there is a lock level that still allows you to make calls), or if he added a lock on the 12th (or knew her password) to make it seem that the call couldn't have been done by anyone other than NC.

I tend to believe that she had it locked and he didn't know the password. It would make sense given the state of the relationship.

I agree that there are some questions and inconsistencies related to the cell phone that have not answered. BTW, I believe that HP asked BC to check Nancy's phone and that is when he said that it was locked.

[ncsu95]

I agree that there are some questions and inconsistencies related to the cell phone that have not answered. BTW, I believe that HP asked BC to check Nancy's phone and that is when he said that it was locked.

Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't remember who asked. It thought SG or MT3K said it on the 911 call. Doesn't really matter, someone asked and he said it was locked on the morning of the 12th.

[jmflu]

It is believed that a call was made from NCs cell phone to BCs cell phone while he was in route or at Harris Teeter. What is not know is if these calls were made from the same cell tower or a different one. If they were from different towers, the phones would have to be in different locations. This would mean that either NC made the call to BC (which impacts the theory that she was already dead by 6:30 am), BC somehow set up his phone to auto answer and made a call from hers to his (although, this would be difficult if they were on separate towers due to the timing of the video of him at HT...unlikely that he could make the call, put the phone back and get to HT in that short of time), or that he had someone help him by making the call from her. They questioned MH and did the good cop / bad cop routine trying to get him to admit helping BC by making this and other calls from her phone. I'm not sure what the other calls are.

The other part to this is that her phone is locked, and according to BC, was locked when JA asked him about on the morning of the 12th. It's reasonable to assume that NC locked her phone to keep him from seeing personal information on the phone. It is not known if she actually did lock it, to what level she locked it if she did (supposedly, there is a lock level that still allows you to make calls), or if he added a lock on the 12th (or knew her password) to make it seem that the call couldn't have been done by anyone other than NC.

I tend to believe that she had it locked and he didn't know the password. It would make sense given the state of the relationship.

Great post!!! :clap:

[fran]

Ummmm, yes he has. His lawyers put out the video tape showing when he went, and he discussed it in his deposition. I think it is safe to say he didn't go to HT at 4 a.m. He says he didn't, and there would be video evidence that he did if he did. I doubt he would lie about it since it would be so easy to prove.

IIRC, in BC's affidavit, he stated he did 'not buy bleach at 4 a.m.' or something to that effect. He did NOT say he didn't go to the store.

I know he showed {proof} he went to the store 'after daylight,' but that doesn't speak to 4:20 a.m.

Yes,............yes it would be on tape. ;)

Just sayin'
fran

[Star12]

IIRC, it was determined that the same tower services that area. One tower, so the cell call could have been made in the right hand and received in the left.

[ncsu95]

IIRC, in BC's affidavit, he stated he did 'not buy bleach at 4 a.m.' or something to that effect. He did NOT say he didn't go to the store.

I know he showed {proof} he went to the store 'after daylight,' but that doesn't speak to 4:20 a.m.

Yes,............yes it would be on tape. ;)

Just sayin'
fran


From his lawyers website:

http://www.kurtzandblum.com/CM/Investigation/Grocery-Receipts-and-Actual-Surveillance-Video.asp



As is clear from Brad's affidavit, he and Nancy awakened shortly after 4:00 a.m. He did not go to the store until after 6:00 a.m.

To set the record straight and diminish the mounting baseless prejudice against him, we are posting the actual Harris Teeter surveillance videos from the morning of July 12, 2008. These were Brad's only trips to any store that morning.

[fran]

From his lawyers website:

http://www.kurtzandblum.com/CM/Investigation/Grocery-Receipts-and-Actual-Surveillance-Video.asp



As is clear from Brad's affidavit, he and Nancy awakened shortly after 4:00 a.m. He did not go to the store until after 6:00 a.m.

To set the record straight and diminish the mounting baseless prejudice against him, we are posting the actual Harris Teeter surveillance videos from the morning of July 12, 2008. These were Brad's only trips to any store that morning.

Thanks for the link. :) I didn't realize that they stated these were his only trips to the store that day.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the 4 - 4:20 a.m. videos to be displayed. Maybe at trial. ;)

It's been my experience that you can't always believe what a defense attorney says. Especially when he's relying on the statements of his client who's facing possible criminal charges.

Like I said in my earlier post, some people believe the 4:20 a.m. store trip and some don't. I happen to believe Brad went to the store on his way home from dumping NC's body. Until I hear otherwise, from LE (most likely), I believe there is a video of BC at 4:20 a.m.

JMHO
fran

[ncsu95]

Thanks for the link. :) I didn't realize that they stated these were his only trips to the store that day.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the 4 - 4:20 a.m. videos to be displayed. Maybe at trial. ;)

It's been my experience that you can't always believe what a defense attorney says. Especially when he's relying on the statements of his client who's facing possible criminal charges.

Like I said in my earlier post, some people believe the 4:20 a.m. store trip and some don't. I happen to believe Brad went to the store on his way home from dumping NC's body. Until I hear otherwise, from LE (most likely), I believe there is a video of BC at 4:20 a.m.

JMHO
fran


I don't think BC is stupid enough to lie about something he KNOWS is easily proven to be a lie. He knows HT videos everything, so he knows there would be video of him at the store at 4:20 am if he was there.

LE has NEVER said he was at HT at 4:20. In fact, the only place that info has come from (that I am aware of) is from MT3K. I fully believe that her source was mistaken or heard incorrectly, and it was 6:20 they either meant to say or did say.

[jmflu]

I don't think BC is stupid enough to lie about something he KNOWS is easily proven to be a lie. He knows HT videos everything, so he knows there would be video of him at the store at 4:20 am if he was there.

LE has NEVER said he was at HT at 4:20. In fact, the only place that info has come from (that I am aware of) is from MT3K. I fully believe that her source was mistaken or heard incorrectly, and it was 6:20 they either meant to say or did say.

But, keep in mind, LE is not telling us ANYthing. Remember a couple weeks ago when the woman said she saw Nancy, and I thought LE should put out a statement defending themselves? Other people reminded me that they are keeping everything close to the vest. They have less interest in updating the public with the truth than they do nailing their man.

[water_dancing]

Like I said in my earlier post, some people believe the 4:20 a.m. store trip and some don't. I happen to believe Brad went to the store on his way home from dumping NC's body. Until I hear otherwise, from LE (most likely), I believe there is a video of BC at 4:20 a.m.


Hmm, does anyone know if they had a security system and if so, did they use it each night? If so, that could add a lot of detail to the timeline as to when it was deactivated and perhaps someone left. For instance if it does show that BC was at HT at 4ish that would show he lied but if it shows he left the house at 3 something, that could be very indicative. Those records may or may not be helpful in the later morning depending on how they used it

WD

[fran]

Hmm, does anyone know if they had a security system and if so, did they use it each night? If so, that could add a lot of detail to the timeline as to when it was deactivated and perhaps someone left. For instance if it does show that BC was at HT at 4ish that would show he lied but if it shows he left the house at 3 something, that could be very indicative. Those records may or may not be helpful in the later morning depending on how they used it

WD

Hi water_dancing and welcome to Websleuths! :)

I don't recall any details at all about a security system. Hopefully someone else can shed some light on this aspect.

fran

[jmflu]

Hmm, does anyone know if they had a security system and if so, did they use it each night? If so, that could add a lot of detail to the timeline as to when it was deactivated and perhaps someone left. For instance if it does show that BC was at HT at 4ish that would show he lied but if it shows he left the house at 3 something, that could be very indicative. Those records may or may not be helpful in the later morning depending on how they used it

WD

I don't know whether they used it, but they have one, because there's a sticker on the window.

[EnvoyDriver61]

I think both sides (the 430HTers vs. the 630HTers) have valid points. It does appear that it would be easy to mistake a 4:30 tape for 6:30 tape by the HT employee. However, the 430HTers do have that powerful bluster at the first press conference.

Several reasons why BC wouldn't admit to a 4:20 a.m. run, especially if it is detergent he purchase, the main one being, what the heck were you washing from 4:30 to 6:30 that you'd need more laundry detergent or what were you using (I think the smallest Tide type of liquid detergent is 32 uses) that much detergent on (you can't possibly go through that much detergent just doing laundry in two hours because the machine doesn't go that fast).

So, I can see taking a chance on deniability and lying about an earlier run where you'd just have to address the video system or someone else by chance looking like BC.

My point is that both sides have valid reasons for believing what they do, IMO. Recognize each side's differing opinions and let's see if something does come out later.

[ncsu95]

But, keep in mind, LE is not telling us ANYthing. Remember a couple weeks ago when the woman said she saw Nancy, and I thought LE should put out a statement defending themselves? Other people reminded me that they are keeping everything close to the vest. They have less interest in updating the public with the truth than they do nailing their man.

I agree, but come on...the chances of him making a 4:20 am trip to that HT are basically zero. Again, he and his lawyers would not be stupid enough to come out and directly say they didn't go when it would be so easily proven that he did. If there is a 4:20 am trip to that HT, then he and his lawyers are the dumbest people on the face of the earth. I just don't think there is even a chance of it.

[cygnusx1]

I agree, but come on...the chances of him making a 4:20 am trip to that HT are basically zero. Again, he and his lawyers would not be stupid enough to come out and directly say they didn't go when it would be so easily proven that he did. If there is a 4:20 am trip to that HT, then he and his lawyers are the dumbest people on the face of the earth. I just don't think there is even a chance of it.

I haven't watched all the deposition video yet. Was he asked about the HT trips? If so, and TS knew he was at HT 4:20 and he didn't volunteer it in the depo, then why did they not grill him about it. They sure did grill him over every single doctor/hospital visit in the past 8 years in the depo I did watch.

[jmflu]

I agree, but come on...the chances of him making a 4:20 am trip to that HT are basically zero. Again, he and his lawyers would not be stupid enough to come out and directly say they didn't go when it would be so easily proven that he did. If there is a 4:20 am trip to that HT, then he and his lawyers are the dumbest people on the face of the earth. I just don't think there is even a chance of it.

It is hard to believe, I'll give you that, because it does seem that it would be so easy to verify, but if Mom has been right all along, she lives nearby, and has a person who told her this firsthand, I believe her.

[ncsu95]

I haven't watched all the deposition video yet. Was he asked about the HT trips? If so, and TS knew he was at HT 4:20 and he didn't volunteer it in the depo, then why did they not grill him about it. They sure did grill him over every single doctor/hospital visit in the past 8 years in the depo I did watch.

No he was not. And I agree, if TS thought he went at 4:20, they would have asked him about it.

[ncsu95]

It is hard to believe, I'll give you that, because it does seem that it would be so easy to verify, but if Mom has been right all along, she lives nearby, and has a person who told her this firsthand, I believe her.

I believe she was told this. I don't believe the information was correct. I believe she was told that he went to LTF and asked for her card to be scanned. I don't believe that information was correct either. I do believe he went to LTF to see if she was there though, I just don't believe he asked for her card to be scanned.

[cygnusx1]

I believe she was told this. I don't believe the information was correct. I believe she was told that he went to LTF and asked for her card to be scanned. I don't believe that information was correct either. I do believe he went to LTF to see if she was there though, I just don't believe he asked for her card to be scanned.

I asked some people in my office who are LTF members about the LTF id card system. They said if a family member card is scanned it brings up the family record. So its possible that he asked if she was there and they took his card to scan it to see if any other family members had checked in.

[fran]

It is hard to believe, I'll give you that, because it does seem that it would be so easy to verify, but if Mom has been right all along, she lives nearby, and has a person who told her this firsthand, I believe her.

FWIW, the information of the 4:20 store visit wasn't mentioned to mom by just one person. Oh..........and the 'other' person(s) didn't know of the 'other.' (LOL, does that make sense?)

As far as any other information mom has divulged, IF people choose to not believe her, that's their perogative. IMO, LE knows the truth. Whether what LE has is enough to convict, only time will tell.:eek:

fran

PS....not directed at you, but do I believe Brad is dumb enough to testify or state under oath to an untruth,..........in one word, 'yes!'

Let's see, lie under oath and get away with murder,:silenced:...........or state the truth and be arrested and tried for murder.:waitasec: It really isn't a hard decision if you're guilty, imo.

[shack]

Ummmm, yes he has. His lawyers put out the video tape showing when he went, and he discussed it in his deposition. I think it is safe to say he didn't go to HT at 4 a.m. He says he didn't, and there would be video evidence that he did if he did. I doubt he would lie about it since it would be so easy to prove.


I agree with you . He shows the receipts and there is video of the trips. I don't understand why people want to keep insisting he went at 4. Its beyond my understanding. Someone may have been told this. But wouldn't you think by now they would figure out they were given bogus information.

[ncsu95]

I agree with you . He shows the receipts and there is video of the trips. I don't understand why people want to keep insisting he went at 4. Its beyond my understanding. Someone may have been told this. But wouldn't you think by now they would figure out they were given bogus information.

MT3K appears to be pretty confident in her sources. I still say it doesn't make sense. If by chance he did go at 4:20, there would be video of it. If that comes out, I will go to 100% guilty because he outright lied about it. It seems it would be easier to explain it than it would be to try and explain why you lied about it. So I will continue to not believe that information until it is shown that he was there, which should be easy to do if he was there.

[momto3kids]

MT3K appears to be pretty confident in her sources. I still say it doesn't make sense. If by chance he did go at 4:20, there would be video of it. If that comes out, I will go to 100% guilty because he outright lied about it. It seems it would be easier to explain it than it would be to try and explain why you lied about it. Not if it was a product you have no need to go to the store at 4:20 for. So I will continue to not believe that information until it is shown that he was there, which should be easy to do if he was there.
I am confident in my sources...2 to be exact. One saw the video and 1 arrived right when the police had left researching it. The story didn't have a moment to circulate outside of HT and get any twist to it. Sure it could have been cleaning detergent and not laundry detergent, but look at what I have stated and tell me what so far proves I am not right on so far...
Feel free to look at my posts since July 15th.

a) BC went to a local store to purchase some kind of detergent and/or bleach
b) later retracted bleach when I was told it wasn't bleach by my family member
c) I posted 4am store purchase
d) I then put 4:20 as time when I had a person who saw the video confirm time
e) I described clothing. Jacket and cap which is what BC wore.
f) Not a self-check out register used. BC didn't use self check out.
g) Made a 6am purchase of milk. He did purchase milk at 6am.
h) I later confirmed HT, once the media felt this was the store. I didn't post store originally because I needed some privacy for my family member.
i) I announced on a radio show, BC had returned to HT to have copies of his VIC transactions. Later his attorneys showed those copies.
j) the chief will not confirm or deny a 4am purchase of bleach which I had already retracted (bleach). But responds bleach or any cleaning supplies. Cleaning supplies were not asked about.
k) I told it was the BMW sedan after some said no way, it is the sedan LE is focused on.

Wouldn't K&B open pandora's box if they did post the video from 4am to 4:30? They are trying to portray him as innocent. What justice would the do for him to post him at HT before 6am?

[ncsu95]

I am confident in my sources...2 to be exact. One saw the video and 1 arrived right when the police had left researching it. The story didn't have a moment to circulate outside of HT and get any twist to it. Sure it could have been cleaning detergent and not laundry detergent, but look at what I have stated and tell me what so far proves I am not right on so far...
Feel free to look at my posts since July 15th.

a) BC went to a local store to purchase some kind of detergent and/or bleach
b) later retracted bleach when I was told it wasn't bleach by my family member
c) I posted 4am store purchase
d) I then put 4:20 as time when I had a person who saw the video confirm time
e) I described clothing. Jacket and cap which is what BC wore.
f) Not a self-check out register used. BC didn't use self check out.
g) Made a 6am purchase of milk. He did purchase milk at 6am.
h) I later confirmed HT, once the media felt this was the store. I didn't post store originally because I needed some privacy for my family member.
i) I announced on a radio show, BC had returned to HT to have copies of his VIC transactions. Later his attorneys showed those copies.
j) the chief will not confirm or deny a 4am purchase of bleach which I had already retracted (bleach). But responds bleach or any cleaning supplies. Cleaning supplies were not asked about.
k) I told it was the BMW sedan after some said no way, it is the sedan LE is focused on.

Wouldn't K&B open pandora's box if they did post the video from 4am to 4:30? They are trying to portray him as innocent. What justice would the do for him to post him at HT before 6am?

Are you suggesting that he made 3 trips to Harris Teeter, 2 of which he purchased detergent? You say he made 2 trips...1 he purchased a cleaning product, and 1 he purchased milk. K&B say the same thing. The only difference is that you say 1 occurred at 4:20 AM, and K&B show video of both occurring after 6:00 AM. The videos put out by K&B support everything you say above except for the time being 4:20 or so in the morning. That is what I contend is wrong with what you are saying. So did he make 3 trips...or is the time on the video posted by K&B incorrect?

[momto3kids]

Are you suggesting that he made 3 trips to Harris Teeter, 2 of which he purchased detergent? You say he made 2 trips...1 he purchased a cleaning product, and 1 he purchased milk. K&B say the same thing. The only difference is that you say 1 occurred at 4:20 AM, and K&B show video of both occurring after 6:00 AM. The videos put out by K&B support everything you say above except for the time being 4:20 or so in the morning. That is what I contend is wrong with what you are saying. So did he make 3 trips...or is the time on the video posted by K&B incorrect?
I am saying not 1 thing I stated has been proven wrong yet. They have not proven he wasn't in HT between 4-4:20 am. This is a man who's adrenaline was pumping.

FWIW...my college daughter went to the store last weekend for me and returned with softner instead of detergent, it was the same shape bottle. She has lived on her own for 2 years, but grabbed the wrong item. She worked 2 years at a grocery store as well, so she knows the difference. This is the type of thing that happens to us who shop often. What about someone who doesn't shop for detergent? Chit like this happens.

What's to say he didn't go 3 times? What if the same type scenario as my daughter occured? What if it was carpet detergent for his trunk? I was told some kind of detergent is all I am saying.

I am not trying to convince anyone, but anything is possible such as the example I just spoke about.

[ncsu95]

I am saying not 1 thing I stated has been proven wrong yet. They have not proven he wasn't in HT between 4-4:20 am. This is a man who's adrenaline was pumping.

FWIW...my college daughter went to the store last weekend for me and returned with softner instead of detergent, it was the same shape bottle. She has lived on her own for 2 years, but grabbed the wrong item. She worked 2 years at a grocery store as well, so she knows the difference. This is the type of thing that happens to us who shop often. What about someone who doesn't shop for detergent? Chit like this happens.

What's to say he didn't go 3 times? What if the same type scenario as my daughter occured? What if it was carpet detergent for his trunk? I was told some kind of detergent is all I am saying.

I am not trying to convince anyone, but anything is possible such as the example I just spoke about.


I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I am asking for clarification. Is it your belief that he went to HT 3 times, or are you questioning the validity of the videos put out by K&B? You have said all along that he went twice (once for detergent and once for milk). So I'm trying to understand if you think the video is wrong or misleading, or if you believe he went a third time where he also purchased detergent.

Please don't be defensive...I'm just trying to get clarification.

[justthinking2008]

NCSU

I agree with you, BC's lawyers would be insane to have the incorrect time, far to easy to prove.

Mom my question to you, did your source actually see the video and the time stamp, and if this is true and everyone is lying this source should come forward and say I saw it and the time stamp. If BC is lying about this as well as his attorneys then he is guilty as sin. I also think that AS would have jumped all over this inconsistency in depo if it existed. I am not saying you are lying, like NCSU I just need more proof of 4:20 visit, so far this info has not been made public.

[justthinking2008]

As far as his purchases are concerned I am sure the register tape kept by the store will indicate exactly what he purchased and how he paid for it.

[cygnusx1]

I contend either the person misread the time-stamp of the video (the first digit) or the person saw another time (tape counter as opposed to the clock) that showed the 4:20 time; i.e. 4:20 into a tape. Or the person heard it secondhand and didn't witness the time stamps at all and something got lost in the translation.

I'm not calling Mom a liar; she heard what she heard. I believe her source was mistaken.

This would be a smoking cannon that would have been revealed in the deposition to prove he was lying about the events of that morning. They didn't grill him on the HT visits because there was nothing there, and they knew it.

[ncsu95]

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I am asking for clarification. Is it your belief that he went to HT 3 times, or are you questioning the validity of the videos put out by K&B? You have said all along that he went twice (once for detergent and once for milk). So I'm trying to understand if you think the video is wrong or misleading, or if you believe he went a third time where he also purchased detergent.

Please don't be defensive...I'm just trying to get clarification.



MT3K...are you willing to answer this? Do you believe he went to HT 2 times or 3?

[momto3kids]

Please don't be defensive...I'm just trying to get clarification.
I have tried and tried to lay out the what I was told since day one. It is all in black & white on WS. I have done it step by step for you (just like I did the testimony). I was trying to show how much I said has proved to be true and to make it easier for you to see. Now you are calling me defensive? I'm damn if I do and damn if I don't.

[ncsu95]

I have tried and tried to lay out the what I was told since day one. It is all in black & white on WS. I have done it step by step for you (just like I did the testimony). I was trying to show how much I said has proved to be true and to make it easier for you to see. Now you are calling me defensive? I'm damn if I do and damn if I don't.

I'm not calling you defensive. I honestly just want to know your opinion, and don't want you to think that I am either attacking you or trying to prove you wrong. I know you have been told things that you fully believe to be true. There are thousands of posts in this forum. I'm just trying to mesh what you were told with what has been put out so far.

1. Were you told he went to HT 2 or 3 times.
2. Do you believe he went 2 or 3 times.
3. If you were told only 2 (and believe only 2), how do you explain the 2 video segments showing him both times after 6, but none at 4:20?

[Anderson]

I'm not calling you defensive. I honestly just want to know your opinion, and don't want you to think that I am either attacking you or trying to prove you wrong. I know you have been told things that you fully believe to be true. There are thousands of posts in this forum. I'm just trying to mesh what you were told with what has been put out so far.

1. Were you told he went to HT 2 or 3 times.
2. Do you believe he went 2 or 3 times.
3. If you were told only 2 (and believe only 2), how do you explain the 2 video segments showing him both times after 6, but none at 4:20?

It might be easiest to review her previous posts. Just use the advanced search function.

[ncsu95]

It might be easiest to review her previous posts. Just use the advanced search function.

I tried...I searched for all her posts and they only went back to the end of August (500 posts). It doesn't seem like they are that difficult to answer.

[Maja]

Hi all,

I'm new here but have been following this for weeks.

My question about the above is if it was well known that she always carried her cell phone when running then why when BC talk to HP about needing CC's phone number the 1st thing HP suggested was that he should check NC's phone for the number? If BC was calling about NC not returning from a run and he needed the number of the person NC allegedly was running with and NC was known to ALWAYS have her phone, why was it suggested to check something that wouldn't even be there if that were true? :waitasec:

Also, if BC had NC's phone in the house when talking to HP and remarking that it was locked, how did JA see it in the car?

WD

This has been a question I have asked a couple of times in other threads...the whole: where was the cell phone left/put...either in the home or in the X5...was there a gap from the time JA arrived and the police? There was a GIANT gap of time from 1230 - 100 AM and again from 640 am - police arrival...so he had essentially 12 hours to clean up and get the story straight, IMO.

[momto3kids]

I'm not calling you defensive. I honestly just want to know your opinion, and don't want you to think that I am either attacking you or trying to prove you wrong. I know you have been told things that you fully believe to be true. There are thousands of posts in this forum. I'm just trying to mesh what you were told with what has been put out so far.

1. Were you told he went to HT 2 or 3 times.
2. Do you believe he went 2 or 3 times.
3. If you were told only 2 (and believe only 2), how do you explain the 2 video segments showing him both times after 6, but none at 4:20?

I encourage you or anyone to go back to my 1st post dated July 15th and most of your questions will be answered. Understand, if I answer 1 question it leads to another. I know this is normal, but I'm beginning to feel I am on trial here.

1) 1st person was shown video with 4:19 exactly. I didn't ask about any other video being shown. 2nd person was told by management LE came looking for 6am milk purchase trip but asked to review earlier and found a visit occured. My posts tell exactly when I was told and how I was told.
2) 1+2=3, since 2 occured after 6am
3)you nor I will see the 4:20 clip...this is going to be used in the criminal case just like DNA or whatever else they need for damaging evidence. a)K&B, might not have gotten it since LE retrieved it B)K&B would have to be idiots to make this clip public if they have it,they are his defense team. Not buying children's motrin, but a cleaning product/detergent @4:20am would have people come off the fence and believe BC is guilty for sure. K&B are idiots IMO, but I dont think they would decapitate their client before the case. Do you know how many have said if this video exists he is guilty as HEXX?

So, this is my story, I stand by it and what I have stated. I previously posted...if I find out any different I will be the 1st to post it.
Nuf said.

[brandy70]

Everyone is talking about her phone being locked. He was a telecommunications expert. Could he not just take her SIM card and put in another phone?

[ncsu95]

Thank you. And if there is ever proof produced of a 4:19 am visit, I will gladly come on here and declare that I am firmly on the 100% guilty side, especially since his lawyers have said explicitly that there were no store trips prior to the 2 they showed.

[momto3kids]

Thank you. And if there is ever proof produced of a 4:19 am visit, I will gladly come on here and declare that I am firmly on the 100% guilty side, especially since his lawyers have said explicitly that there were no store trips prior to the 2 they showed.
You hit the nail on the head! This is why they won't show that clip.

[momto3kids]

Everyone is talking about her phone being locked. He was a telecommunications expert. Could he not just take her SIM card and put in another phone?
Hi and welcome Brandy....I know little about cell phones especially after today with Sprint, I'm not happy with cell phones, sore subject for me..LOL I am sure someone can answer that, maybe NCSU.
If not many will be on tomorrow because of the time it is at the moment.

AND don't take this personal NCSU...now I have to sit and pay bills I was to do before you got hold of me.:woohoo:

[fran]

Everyone is talking about her phone being locked. He was a telecommunications expert. Could he not just take her SIM card and put in another phone?

I don't think it matters if her phone was locked or not. IIRC, the phone call to Brad during the after 6:15 a.m. HT visit was made from the home, per Brad's affidavit, to Brad's cell phone.

IMHO, these means, most likely, the phone call was made from the home phone and not NC's cell phone.

Having said that, BC is a VoIP expert. BC had VoIP capability at his home. Of course, BC said he no longer had his home phone on the VoIP system, but ..........Brad said a LOT of things.:rolleyes:

JMHO
fran

[sunflowers]

But, keep in mind, LE is not telling us ANYthing. Remember a couple weeks ago when the woman said she saw Nancy, and I thought LE should put out a statement defending themselves? Other people reminded me that they are keeping everything close to the vest. They have less interest in updating the public with the truth than they do nailing their man.

just finished reading through all of the HT stuff. reminders as you all think about this:
1. Cary Chief of Police's reaction when 4:20 time brought up---seems that her reaction suggests this may be a possibility
2. momto3kids had 2 separate confirmations of this timeframe, from 2 separate people who didn't know the other had said anything.
3. there are many issues that LE clearly hasn't wanted to tip their hand about, & one concerns this HT situation. LE has said NOTHING about these trips---there's a reason---they are protecting their case
4. brad's attorneys are the ones who wanted to "clear" brad by publishing the HT information THEY WANTED THE PUBLIC TO KNOW. we know of the 6 a.m. trips from Brad's legal team, and it seems they have been somewhat successful in persuading many people that maybe there wasn't a 4:20 a.m. trip.
5. even though it's confusing, perhaps that's part of the strategy. if we focus on the other 2 trips, who would imagine there'd be an earlier one.
doesn't seem logical, but if we think outside of the box & think of all the possible options, it actually is possible.

[sunflowers]

I don't think it matters if her phone was locked or not. IIRC, the phone call to Brad during the after 6:15 a.m. HT visit was made from the home, per Brad's affidavit, to Brad's cell phone.

IMHO, these means, most likely, the phone call was made from the home phone and not NC's cell phone.

Having said that, BC is a VoIP expert. BC had VoIP capability at his home. Of course, BC said he no longer had his home phone on the VoIP system, but ..........Brad said a LOT of things.:rolleyes:

JMHO
fran

exactly. we don't want to start formulating our theories based on what one person is saying, especially when that one person has everything to lose & is biased.

doesn't mean he's guilty, it just means that he would not exactly be the most objective person to get information from.

to consider his info / statements together with all of the other information, yes. to make decisions based just on his input, not a good idea.

[ncsu95]

You hit the nail on the head! This is why they won't show that clip.

But I don't believe that they would ever intentionally put out false information, especially not for 1 client. That could ruin there whole practice.

[SleuthyGal]

It would be a foolish move if they state he absolutely did not visit any store, or any other store, at any other time that day other than the 2 visits they posted on their website, and then we come to learn he did. Very, very foolish. Time will tell. Note that it would totally turn the public's view of BC's involvement in the crime if CPD did have such evidence in their possession and released this info. If LE has this evidence they are saying nothing about it, and are thus protecting Mr. Cooper. This should make everyone happy as his rights are really not being trampled during the investigation.

[Star12]

IIRC, in his affidavit about that phone call, BC says Nancy called from home. Later, regarding another phone call, BC says home phone (I think this may have been in his depo, but I couldn't tell you just where at this point in time). So he does make a distinction as to a land line.

And my sim card has been switched between phones 4 different times, but as far as if being locked would transfer to another phone, I have no idea, since I have never bothered locking mine.

As far as the 4:20 HT trip, BC said he was up at 4 am. I can't discount a trip to HT at 4:20. It would have been more than helpful if K&B had shown the HT tape from that time period. Like Chief Bazemore said, sometimes you have to look at things to rule stuff out. So we have no proof as to whether he was there at that time, or not.

[fran]

From what I understand, it was NOT BC's attorney's intent to DENY any 4:20 a.m. HT trip. It was to DENY that BC purchased BLEACH, which was the FIRST story circulating. (therefore, IF the 4:20 a.m. trip ever DOES come out, the attorney wasn't lying (which I don't think he would do) he could claim (and maybe rightly so) BC never told him about it) and BC could say he did NOT buy bleach.

In actuality, the ORIGINAL '4:00 a.m. store trip' mentioned by mom, here on Weblseuths, (which is WHERE the media got the information in the first place) was said to be 'LAUNDRY DETERGENT WITH BLEACH' and the media got it wrong as just plain BLEACH. From there, the other media outlets ran with it and it's been repeated incorrectly ever since, including by many posters here on Websleuths.

Just thought I'd throw that out there, FWIW.

JMHO
fran

PS......So,...........ask yourself....:confused:......Why did he buy laundry detergent at 4:20 a.m., MILK at after 6:15 a.m., laundry detergent and juice at 6:30 and 6:45?:waitasec:

Could the 4:20 purchase be on the way home from dumping NC's body? The 6:15 MILK purchase because they were really out of milk and the 6:30 and phone call and 6:45 puchase be part of the staging?

just a hypothetical question. ;)

[SleuthyGal]

From K&B's website:

"To set the record straight and diminish the mounting baseless prejudice against him, we are posting the actual Harris Teeter surveillance videos from the morning of July 12, 2008. These were Brad's only trips to any store that morning."
-----

That one sentence is a bold assertion, unless K&B know for a fact that there were only 2 visits to HT or any other store. if Brad went to any store (incl. HT) at any other time that morning..i.e. a 3rd HT trip on 7/12/08, then the store will have it on video. And IF he did, he lied about it. And that would bode very, very poorly for him, IMHO.

[fran]

From K&B's website:

"To set the record straight and diminish the mounting baseless prejudice against him, we are posting the actual Harris Teeter surveillance videos from the morning of July 12, 2008. These were Brad's only trips to any store that morning."
-----

That one sentence is a bold assertion, unless K&B know for a fact that there were only 2 visits to HT or any other store. if Brad went to any store (incl. HT) at any other time that morning..i.e. a 3rd HT trip on 7/12/08, then the store will have it on video. And IF he did, he lied about it. And that would bode very, very poorly for him, IMHO.

Interesting SleuthyGal. Thanks for the info! :)

Wonder IF the attorney actually looked through the tapes or IF he's going by Brad's statement?:confused:

I recall one instance brought out at the Scott Peterson trial where LE showed Scott one of the infamous pictures of 'Scott and Amber' taken at Christmas time, the one with Amber in the red dress. LOL, Scott said, "That's supposed to be me?":bang:..........Amber came forward a few days later and Scott began his media blitz where he claimed 'he'd told LE about the girlfriend the very first night Laci was missing.":rolleyes:

LE couldn't believe it! :eek:..........EITHER time! ;)

fran

[garner_nc]

I find it amusing that because K&B has not posted a 4:20am video that people assume they are hiding something. If they did post a 4:20am video, then people would say – “oh, maybe it was 4:25am, and they only showed the part of the video where he was not in the video.”

They cannot show him at HT at 4:20am if he was not there. They could probably provide video from 4:00am to 5:00am, but they stated These were "Brad's only trips to any store that morning" so they do not see the point in posting another one.

I just think that even if K&B did provide a 4:20am video, some on here would still say that does not prove he was not out buying detergent at 4:20am. Some would claim he went to a different store or he knew where cameras where in the store and he covertly walked in and out of HT unseen.

Posting a video or not will not satisfy those who believe he was out shopping at 4:20am, so why bother posting one.

[ncsu95]

From what I understand, it was NOT BC's attorney's intent to DENY any 4:20 a.m. HT trip. It was to DENY that BC purchased BLEACH, which was the FIRST story circulating. (therefore, IF the 4:20 a.m. trip ever DOES come out, the attorney wasn't lying (which I don't think he would do) he could claim (and maybe rightly so) BC never told him about it) and BC could say he did NOT buy bleach.

In actuality, the ORIGINAL '4:00 a.m. store trip' mentioned by mom, here on Weblseuths, (which is WHERE the media got the information in the first place) was said to be 'LAUNDRY DETERGENT WITH BLEACH' and the media got it wrong as just plain BLEACH. From there, the other media outlets ran with it and it's been repeated incorrectly ever since, including by many posters here on Websleuths.

Just thought I'd throw that out there, FWIW.

JMHO
fran

PS......So,...........ask yourself....:confused:......Why did he buy laundry detergent at 4:20 a.m., MILK at after 6:15 a.m., laundry detergent and juice at 6:30 and 6:45?:waitasec:

Could the 4:20 purchase be on the way home from dumping NC's body? The 6:15 MILK purchase because they were really out of milk and the 6:30 and phone call and 6:45 puchase be part of the staging?

just a hypothetical question. ;)


Yes it was there intent to deny a 4:20 am trip to HT. They explicitly denied any trip prior to the 6:20 am trip.

[ncsu95]

From K&B's website:

"To set the record straight and diminish the mounting baseless prejudice against him, we are posting the actual Harris Teeter surveillance videos from the morning of July 12, 2008. These were Brad's only trips to any store that morning."
-----

That one sentence is a bold assertion, unless K&B know for a fact that there were only 2 visits to HT or any other store. if Brad went to any store (incl. HT) at any other time that morning..i.e. a 3rd HT trip on 7/12/08, then the store will have it on video. And IF he did, he lied about it. And that would bode very, very poorly for him, IMHO.

Right, which is why I completely doubt the validity of it. I honestly believe MT3Ks source just got it wrong. They were correct about 2 trips (1 for detergent, another for milk).

[fran]

Yes it was there intent to deny a 4:20 am trip to HT. They explicitly denied any trip prior to the 6:20 am trip.

Thanks ncsu95. I also thanked SleuthyGal for the information and the quote.

Guess you just can't believe everything you read on the internet or MSM's though, INCLUDING attorney's websites. ;)

fran

[EnvoyDriver61]

RE a 4:00 - 4:30 a.m. trip

BC states he's at home tending to a sick child, IMO, a good cover for when/if a 4:20 a.m. potential trip comes up.

If it does, according to BC and his attornies 1. ) it can't be him because he stated he was at home. 2. ) it will just be a coincidence that someone who might look like BC came in 3. ) why would someone need detergent at 4:20 a.m. AND 6:20 a.m.

If you add all the stories up, there is already a foundation for reasonable doubt being laid.

[gritguy]

From K&B's website:

"To set the record straight and diminish the mounting baseless prejudice against him, we are posting the actual Harris Teeter surveillance videos from the morning of July 12, 2008. These were Brad's only trips to any store that morning."
-----

That one sentence is a bold assertion, unless K&B know for a fact that there were only 2 visits to HT or any other store. if Brad went to any store (incl. HT) at any other time that morning..i.e. a 3rd HT trip on 7/12/08, then the store will have it on video. And IF he did, he lied about it. And that would bode very, very poorly for him, IMHO.

Moreover, if they had an inkling that he made such a trip, they should get out in front of the story and publish it themselves with an explanation. The defense should want no surprise information coming from the prosecution that is at odds with their story.

On maxim we always observed at trial: if there is bad information coming about your case, be the one to tell it! You get to shape the story first, and you get to take the zinger away from the other attorney. Hell, put it in your opening statement. Make it look like you have nothing to hide, even if you wish the evidence didn't exist. Telling a story to the jury when the other attorney can get up and bust a hole in it that you knew was coming would be stupid. This is why the defense team should and maybe has checked out that 4:20 story. This is why the LE team should follow up on anyone who calls in to say they saw NC after her last known encounter with BC.

So, if those attorneys didn't check, then they have a lot riding on BC's personal timeline, but of course it's his risk if he lied to the attorneys, not their risk.

[SleuthyGal]

RE a 4:00 - 4:30 a.m. trip

BC states he's at home tending to a sick child, IMO, a good cover for when/if a 4:20 a.m. potential trip comes up.

If it does, according to BC and his attornies 1. ) it can't be him because he stated he was at home. 2. ) it will just be a coincidence that someone who might look like BC came in 3. ) why would someone need detergent at 4:20 a.m. AND 6:20 a.m.

If you add all the stories up, there is already a foundation for reasonable doubt being laid.

Just a clarification: he didn't say he was tending to a sick child...just that both he and Nancy got up to tend to Katie, as she woke up around 4am.

[ncsu95]

Moreover, if they had an inkling that he made such a trip, they should get out in front of the story and publish it themselves with an explanation. The defense should want no surprise information coming from the prosecution that is at odds with their story.

On maxim we always observed at trial: if there is bad information coming about your case, be the one to tell it! You get to shape the story first, and you get to take the zinger away from the other attorney. Hell, put it in your opening statement. Make it look like you have nothing to hide, even if you wish the evidence didn't exist. Telling a story to the jury when the other attorney can get up and bust a hole in it that you knew was coming would be stupid. This is why the defense team should and maybe has checked out that 4:20 story. This is why the LE team should follow up on anyone who calls in to say they saw NC after her last known encounter with BC.

So, if those attorneys didn't check, then they have a lot riding on BC's personal timeline, but of course it's his risk if he lied to the attorneys, not their risk.

Exactly...and this is why I don't believe he made a trip at 4:20. They would be idiots to put out information that was easily proven to be false. It's not like they don't know the store is video taped.

[fran]

Like I said before, you can either believe the 4:20 a.m. story or not. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. It's what LE has that counts. Do they have this info? :waitasec:They're not talking. ;)

IMO, this attorney should tread very lightly when it comes to putting stuff out to the general public, especially when it comes to the 'word' of his client.

Kinda' reminds me of one infamous case where the 'Hollywood-type' attorney, in his quest to embarrass the DA in open court, may have helped convict his client of double murder. It was the defense attorney who brought attention to the fact the defendent did NOT leave the marital home at the time he so claimed. Thus leaving it virtually impossible for another person to have committed the crime.:bang:

Just sayin'
fran

[SleuthyGal]

It's what LE has that counts. Do they have this info? They're not talking.

That's the $64K question! And they will never confirm or deny this info, so it will continue to linger until such time as there is a trial (if that ever happens).

[gritguy]

Like I said before, you can either believe the 4:20 a.m. story or not. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. It's what LE has that counts. Do they have this info? :waitasec:They're not talking. ;)

IMO, this attorney should tread very lightly when it comes to putting stuff out to the general public, especially when it comes to the 'word' of his client.

Kinda' reminds me of one infamous case where the 'Hollywood-type' attorney, in his quest to embarrass the DA in open court, may have helped convict his client of double murder. It was the defense attorney who brought attention to the fact the defendent did NOT leave the marital home at the time he so claimed. Thus leaving it virtually impossible for another person to have committed the crime.:bang:

Just sayin'
fran

Good point, but here they have staked themselves out seven ways to sunday stating or implying that the trips to the store did not involve him being there at 4:20. Assuming he's guilty, you dang right I hope that's a slip-up and LE has videotape of him strolling right in there. BC's position is clear and as you say LE takes no public position so we'll see. Hopefully sooner rather than later!

[Topsail Girl]

Hey Y'all I wasn't sure where to post this so if this isn't the correct place I'll move it. I wanted to share some info I got Fri night at a halloween party about Brad and his behaviors. After the children in the neighborhood were done collecting their goodies, hubby and I went to a friends house for a gathering. While there I began talking with a woman about Michelle's case and that led to Nancy's murder. She told me her hubby worked with Brad and that when he returned from taking the kids out she would introduce him to me. He was wearing a Cisco jacket and she told him I was following Nancy's case as she has been doing too. Her hubby told me that he played volleyball with Brad many times. He said Brad was arrogant, moody and very competitive. If something didn't go his way he could turn dark and moody quickly. He said off the volleyball court, Brad as very anti-social, never spoke about Nancy and rarely talked about Katie and Bella. This guy told me that when Brad did occasionally speak of Katie and Bella it was "my girls" and never "Katie and Bella" by their actual names. He also said he didn't like or dislike Brad because he never got to know him well enough (even working with him for almost 3 years) to form an opinion.

[ncsu95]

That's consistent with what NCs friends have said...he's not very social.

[Topsail Girl]

That's consistent with what NCs friends have said...he's not very social.

You are correct, I was thinking more along the lines that this is the first time we've heard mention from Brad's "friends" that he is dark and moody and not happy if he isn't getting his way.

[ncsu95]

You are correct, I was thinking more along the lines that this is the first time we've heard mention from Brad's "friends" that he is dark and moody and not happy if he isn't getting his way.

This is not a Brad Cooper question...don't you know or have known people that are one way in a public setting and another in private? I know a lot of people that are really shy in public, but you can't get them to shut up in private. It could be something similar...he is standoffish in public and different with his "close" friends.

[Topsail Girl]

Then I have to ask what "close" friends. We have not heard of a single "close" friend of Brad's. I do understand kind of what you're saying. My hubby is quiet upon meeting new people. He's not standoffish and will chat politely but he's not one to start a conversation either. Once he gets to know you then he's a chatter box.

Shy and quiet does not however equal dark and moody in my opinion.

[ncsu95]

Then I have to ask what "close" friends. We have not heard of a single "close" friend of Brad's. I do understand kind of what you're saying. My hubby is quiet upon meeting new people. He's not standoffish and will chat politely but he's not one to start a conversation either. Once he gets to know you then he's a chatter box.

Shy and quiet does not however equal dark and moody in my opinion.

No, but your husband might be perceived that way by other people. But yes, that is what I'm talking about. I put "close" because of the not having really close friends.

I can relate. I was a military kid growing up. You never got really close to people because one of you was moving every year or 2. I have several friends but no "close" friends that I talk to all the time. I have friends I see about once a month, and I'm fine with that.

[SleuthyGal]

Hi TSG! Thanks for that insight; it does fit with how others have described him.

[Topsail Girl]

No, but your husband might be perceived that way by other people. But yes, that is what I'm talking about. I put "close" because of the not having really close friends.

I can relate. I was a military kid growing up. You never got really close to people because one of you was moving every year or 2. I have several friends but no "close" friends that I talk to all the time. I have friends I see about once a month, and I'm fine with that.

I'm sooo thankful I was not a military kid. I hate moving and I'm a true homebody. The only time I've ever left this area was when I was 20 and I moved to Mobile Alabama for a few years. I couldn't take it and I moved back home to my family.

As for hubby I/we have been told that he's quiet but no one has ever said they percieved his as standoffish. Not that it means anything since I doubt most people would say something like that to your face.

What I found interesting when talking to this guy was the fact that he said he really had no opinion of Brad because he just didn't know him that well. The other thing that got me was always referring to Bella and Katie as "MY girls" and acted as if Nancy did not exist. :confused:

[Topsail Girl]

Hi TSG! Thanks for that insight; it does fit with how others have described him.

Hey SG. How are you? O/T check out the Michelle Young thread for some new info.

[SleuthyGal]

Doing fine. I went there early this morning...will check there again now. Thought of you yesterday & today (and of course Linda & family).

[Topsail Girl]

Doing fine. I went there early this morning...will check there again now. Thought of you yesterday & today (and of course Linda & family).


Aww thanks!!! :blowkiss:

[ncsu95]

I'm sooo thankful I was not a military kid. I hate moving and I'm a true homebody. The only time I've ever left this area was when I was 20 and I moved to Mobile Alabama for a few years. I couldn't take it and I moved back home to my family.

As for hubby I/we have been told that he's quiet but no one has ever said they percieved his as standoffish. Not that it means anything since I doubt most people would say something like that to your face.

What I found interesting when talking to this guy was the fact that he said he really had no opinion of Brad because he just didn't know him that well. The other thing that got me was always referring to Bella and Katie as "MY girls" and acted as if Nancy did not exist. :confused:

Exactly. And I'm sure he isn't.

[jmflu]

Hi TG!! That is GREAT info you got... and fits right in with everything we have amassed about BC's personality to date.

Funny how some people don't form an opinion about someone's personality based on stuff like that, while others of us do...

[SleuthyGal]

I personally don't care what Brad's personality is like...it means nothing because unless the DA has the evidence, and strong evidence at that, a conviction cannot be obtained (nor frankly, should it). The rubber meets the road on the amount and strength of their evidence. Waiting 3+ months to collect Brad's clothes and shoes from 7/12 is not what I consider first-rate evidence collection. I want to know why it took them so long.

[raisincharlie]

I personally don't care what Brad's personality is like...it means nothing because unless the DA has the evidence, and strong evidence at that, a conviction cannot be obtained (nor frankly, should it). The rubber meets the road on the amount and strength of their evidence. Waiting 3+ months to collect Brad's clothes and shoes from 7/12 is not what I consider first-rate evidence collection. I want to know why it took them so long.

Maybe the clothes were looked for the first time but were not located in the residence. Go and look a second time and perhaps they might show up - if not guess one could assume they got pitched out at some point ?

[SleuthyGal]

Maybe the clothes were looked for the first time but were not located in the residence. Go and look a second time and perhaps they might show up - if not guess one could assume they got pitched out at some point ?

That would make me feel better if that were the situation (talking from a detective critique standpoint only). If Brad were smart/clever, he would have incinerated every last thing he wore. Where to do this, I don't know. His problem, not mine.

[raisincharlie]

That would make me feel better if that were the situation (talking from a detective critique standpoint only). If Brad were smart/clever, he would have incinerated every last thing he wore. Where to do this, I don't know. His problem, not mine.

We have to remember Brad was not at the house initially - he was at SH's house when the warrant was executed and sometime between the 12th and the 16th he had made a trip to Cisco. It's not like the guy didn't have an opportunity to ditch them somewhere on his travels.

[SleuthyGal]

We have to remember Brad was not at the house initially - he was at SH's house when the warrant was executed and sometime between the 12th and the 16th he had made a trip to Cisco. It's not like the guy didn't have an opportunity to ditch them somewhere on his travels.

Very true.

[RKAB]

It's not like the guy didn't have an opportunity to ditch them somewhere on his travels.

Do you think LE followed him though? If they suspected him from the beginning, is that something they might do?

[ncsu95]

Exactly. And I'm sure he isn't.

And the "he" I'm talking about is Topsail's husband, not BC. I don't know BC.

[raisincharlie]

Do you think LE followed him though? If they suspected him from the beginning, is that something they might do?

They did have 2 squad cars at the house and they did know he was at SH's house and they knew about the trip to Cisco. But I would suspect they have not followed him for long after that. Might have put a GPS unit on the cars however.

[Maja]

I'm having a difficult time understanding why SO MUCH CLEAN UP after a strangulation? How would there be any blood or anything to clean up? Seems BC's clothes would always contain some of NC's DNA and if he dirtied them at the site where he put her, they could be washed and no longer contain any damaging evidence.

Please help me with this one.

[Maja]

http://www.health24.com/news/General_health/1-915,39824.asp

From this article it would take very little time...less than the 4 mins some have suggested.

[Star12]

They did have 2 squad cars at the house and they did know he was at SH's house and they knew about the trip to Cisco. But I would suspect they have not followed him for long after that. Might have put a GPS unit on the cars however.

K&B made the police stop following BC, IIRC. Chief B. was asked about that in a presser, and covered well saying that LE was also offering LE support for the Rentzes and Listers.

[Maja]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2040983/posts

6 days prior to NC, a Rabbi's wife is found and an MRI showed evidence of strangulation...interesting. Seems an MRI really shows details that can be later shown visually to a jury.

BTW: May have another case of a husband strangling his wife with the case in Jerusalem.

[Maja]

http://www.sog.unc.edu/programs/ncmagistrates/documents/Parker4DVStrangulation1-12-08.pdf

Amazing educational presentation..

[ncsu95]

I'm having a difficult time understanding why SO MUCH CLEAN UP after a strangulation? How would there be any blood or anything to clean up? Seems BC's clothes would always contain some of NC's DNA and if he dirtied them at the site where he put her, they could be washed and no longer contain any damaging evidence.

Please help me with this one.


I have the same issue. People keep saying that him cleaning for several hours points to his guilt...I don't see that because it wouldn't be necessary. To me, it points to him trying to do something "out of his character" as a feeble attempt to save his marriage.

[jmflu]

I think someone yesterday went into a nice long, detailed explanation of why Brad would have needed to do some severe cleaning. Remember a post about Nancy fighting back, there being some thrashing about, movement perhaps into several areas, perhaps even things getting knocked over or broken? So, even though there might not have been a LOT of blood persay, what blood there was might have spattered across an area, along with urine and possible feces when her bowels relaxed, and he could have been dragging her through the house at that point.

[Star12]

http://www.sog.unc.edu/programs/ncmagistrates/documents/Parker4DVStrangulation1-12-08.pdf

Amazing educational presentation..

Only partway through that I found I was having trouble breathing. Excellent find!

[raisincharlie]

I'm having a difficult time understanding why SO MUCH CLEAN UP after a strangulation? How would there be any blood or anything to clean up? Seems BC's clothes would always contain some of NC's DNA and if he dirtied them at the site where he put her, they could be washed and no longer contain any damaging evidence.

Please help me with this one.

Are you aware if there was an argument in the residence ? Are you aware if things were thrown that may have resulted in releases of materials, food stuffs, liguids etc ? Are you aware, if there was an argument, was it contained to just one specific area ? Are you aware, if Nancy was strangled in the residence, did her bowels release and where ? These things are possible and would require some significant cleanup if they occurred.

As to the clothes, it seems to me the point was to recover the clothes to verify their existence rather than their forensic value. They were not reported on the July 16th inventory nor on this SW inventory. It is possible the clothes will not be found.

[Maja]

Are you aware if there was an argument in the residence ? Are you aware if things were thrown that may have resulted in releases of materials, food stuffs, liguids etc ? Are you aware, if there was an argument, was it contained to just one specific area ? Are you aware, if Nancy was strangled in the residence, did her bowels release and where ? These things are possible and would require some significant cleanup if they occurred.

As to the clothes, it seems to me the point was to recover the clothes to verify their existence rather than their forensic value. They were not reported on the July 16th inventory nor on this SW inventory. It is possible the clothes will not be found.


Got it RC...my narrow perspective had BC sneaking up on NC and doing the strangling. Which accounted for the fact neither of them had any real marks on them. Allegedly BC had scratch marks on his neck and photo shopped out possibly in K&B's site.