PDA

View Full Version : New Search Warrant



Pages : [1] 2

Byrdbrain
10-30-2008, 12:04 PM
This may already be discussed in other threads, but I just saw on noon news that the detectives are back at Brad's house.

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 12:08 PM
This may already be discussed in other threads, but I just saw on noon news that the detectives are back at Brad's house.


Thanks for the heads up Byrdbrain - will be looking for it now. :)

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 12:16 PM
Here you go :

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6478990

Star12
10-30-2008, 12:16 PM
which station?

Skittles
10-30-2008, 12:22 PM
which station?

ABC 11. See RC's link, above. I don't see anything on WRAL yet.

Byrdbrain
10-30-2008, 12:24 PM
Yes, I saw it on WTVD 12:00 news

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 12:26 PM
Perhaps they are looking for items that were referenced by various persons during the custody hearing - i.e the diamond necklace, the second diamond stud earring and so on.

Byrdbrain
10-30-2008, 12:27 PM
Since Brad has already been charged, can we assume this warrant will be released as soon as completed/filed?

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 12:30 PM
Since Brad has already been charged, can we assume this warrant will be released as soon as completed/filed?

Hmmmm, my guess would be that it would depend on what they were looking for.

Star12
10-30-2008, 12:38 PM
Hmmmm, my guess would be that it would depend on what they were looking for.

The more they find.................

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 12:44 PM
The more they find.................


Have to wonder if a few more computers have been taken and the diamond pendant from the desk (if Brad was telling the truth about its location).

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 12:51 PM
"Sources tell Eyewitness News Cary Police returned with a second search warrant Wednesday and remained at the home into the night."

They were there many hours. Wonder if the prosecutors made a list of things for them to go search for...I would imagine any forensic evidence would not be what they were in search of since it's been 3+ months since the crime.

reddress58
10-30-2008, 12:54 PM
"Sources tell Eyewitness News Cary Police returned with a second search warrant Wednesday and remained at the home into the night."

They were there many hours. Wonder if the prosecutors made a list of things for them to go search for...I would imagine any forensic evidence would not be what they were in search of since it's been 3+ months since the crime.
Into the night? Sounds like they're looking for blood.

garner_nc
10-30-2008, 12:57 PM
When does the Rentz family ask for NC belongings such as the necklace or any other family heirloom? What about the kids belongings?

Would the CPD obtain items through a search warrant and then turn them over to the Rentz family?

Skittles
10-30-2008, 12:58 PM
Have to wonder if a few more computers have been taken and the diamond pendant from the desk (if Brad was telling the truth about its location).

Or perhaps those sticks from the vase in the foyer that AS asked Brad about.

piedmont
10-30-2008, 12:59 PM
Or perhaps those sticks from the vase in the foyer that AS asked Brad about.

Would someone remind me what is the significance of the sticks?

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 01:00 PM
Those sticks are so curious...and all the question(s) around that vase.

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 01:02 PM
Or perhaps those sticks from the vase in the foyer that AS asked Brad about.


I know - those sticks are making me nuts wondering about them. Surely Ms. Stubbs didn't just invent some off wall the wall question to throw at Brad you think ? I don't think so.

piedmont
10-30-2008, 01:04 PM
Those sticks are so curious...and all the question(s) around that vase.

Could they have found the sticks or parts of them in some other location? Or some are missing? Also the green plastic is a mystery item.

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 01:05 PM
When does the Rentz family ask for NC belongings such as the necklace or any other family heirloom? What about the kids belongings?

Would the CPD obtain items through a search warrant and then turn them over to the Rentz family?


I don't think so Garner - but NC has some rather unusual laws. I don't really think from a constitutional view that LE would ever be allowed to do this as it is totally outside the scope of the essence andthe prupose for which search warrants were designed. I just don't think it is possible

reddress58
10-30-2008, 01:06 PM
SG, You need to take Madam to JA Young's abode to steal yard ornaments...or maybe political signs. Anything to strike up a conversation. We NEED to know about those STICKS! Now!

And would someone one please tell WRAL to "get on the stick" and get that SW posted! Geez, no one moves fast enough around here:-)

piedmont
10-30-2008, 01:07 PM
Maybe re the sticks-one of NC's friends was able to say they were there always and now they're not. Where are they?

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 01:10 PM
Ooooh maybe he'd feel compelled to arrest Madame for stealing lawn ornaments, esp if she committed the crime right in front of him. (my friend's Great Dane would occasionally steal a stuffed toy from Petsmart, hiding it in his mouth, keeping his mouth closed, and only spitting it out later in the car. hehehe)

I need to know about all the evidence, not just the sticks.

Boy that Ed Crump has been getting the goods first all week! Exclusive video of Brad's arrest @ home and now first breaking story on the news about the new warrant.

Skittles
10-30-2008, 01:11 PM
I've been thinking about those sticks.

In the depo, Brad is asked what items are in the foyer. He says there is a vase that the girls sometimes put stuffed animals in. He said it was a tall vase. AS asked whether there were flowers or sticks in it? Brad said the kids may have thrown a stick in the vase, but normally just stuffed animals.

Brad also mentions that at Diana D's party he was with the girls picking up sticks and stones.

If the police found sticks behind or under the key table that were suspicious you'd think they would have taken them, but they are not listed. So how did AS know to ask a question? Unless Nancy told AS that Brad had threatened her with one previously?

garner_nc
10-30-2008, 01:14 PM
Thanks RC - just curious.

If her friends know details about what items were placed where in the house, then my hat is off the them. I would not be able to recall what my neighbor has in their house and if something was moved or not. If they can remember where a vase sat, then wow...Better memory then I will ever have.

Star12
10-30-2008, 01:20 PM
I've been thinking about those sticks.

In the depo, Brad is asked what items are in the foyer. He says there is a vase that the girls sometimes put stuffed animals in. He said it was a tall vase. AS asked whether there were flowers or sticks in it? Brad said the kids may have thrown a stick in the vase, but normally just stuffed animals.

Brad also mentions that at Diana D's party he was with the girls picking up sticks and stones.

If the police found sticks behind or under the key table that were suspicious you'd think they would have taken them, but they are not listed. So how did AS know to ask a question? Unless Nancy told AS that Brad had threatened her with one previously?

Could the sticks just be those decorative twiggy branches you see at Michael's floral department? Don't know about now, but used to be everybody had a tall vase in the foyer with those or similar - sometimes pussywillow, etc. But AS did seem to make a big deal of the vase and moving it around.

Byrdbrain
10-30-2008, 01:20 PM
Back to the possibility they are seizing computers, I guess they may be interested in what he has done via computer since the last search warrant while he's been holed up at home. Also, while I check Websleuths on this case often, I am not on enough to know this but some of you may be--have any regular posters "vanished" since Brad's arrest? I know there has been speculation in the past that he was lurking.

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 01:22 PM
I've been thinking about those sticks.

In the depo, Brad is asked what items are in the foyer. He says there is a vase that the girls sometimes put stuffed animals in. He said it was a tall vase. AS asked whether there were flowers or sticks in it? Brad said the kids may have thrown a stick in the vase, but normally just stuffed animals.

Brad also mentions that at Diana D's party he was with the girls picking up sticks and stones.

If the police found sticks behind or under the key table that were suspicious you'd think they would have taken them, but they are not listed. So how did AS know to ask a question? Unless Nancy told AS that Brad had threatened her with one previously?

SW inventories are kind of misleading in some ways. We all know fingerprints are collected at what is believed to be a crime scene but this never shows on a search warrant inventory. There are numerous forensic valued samples collected that don't show up on an inventory list. What we know that was collected and listed on the inventory is most liekly less than half at least of what was collected during the execution of the warrant. If sticks were found it is possible there was some forensic value to them and therefore the collection would not be listed.

Also, and this will bring howling I am sure, but it is not uncommon for LE to provide questions to insurance companies if a person suspected (in LE's mind) as being involved in a murder attempts to claim an insurance benefit. This happens when there is a suspicious death and someone makes a claim for the money - the insuror often requires a deposition. It is not out of the realm of possibility that LE also provided a question or two to TS for the custody deposition. And before all the screeching starts, LE can provide a question but are not willing nor obligated to provide the answer or the interest concerning such question.

Star12
10-30-2008, 01:22 PM
Ooooh maybe he'd feel compelled to arrest Madame for stealing lawn ornaments, esp if she committed the crime right in front of him. (my friend's Great Dane would occasionally steal a stuffed toy from Petsmart, hiding it in his mouth, keeping his mouth closed, and only spitting it out later in the car. hehehe)

I need to know about all the evidence, not just the sticks.

Boy that Ed Crump has been getting the goods first all week! Exclusive video of Brad's arrest @ home and now first breaking story on the news about the new warrant.

Isn't it something how Durham always gets the raleigh news before wral.

Star12
10-30-2008, 01:28 PM
When does the Rentz family ask for NC belongings such as the necklace or any other family heirloom? What about the kids belongings?

Would the CPD obtain items through a search warrant and then turn them over to the Rentz family?

Earlier the Rentzes asked for her jewelry and hats.

Q - senility is taking over...were the necklaces the friends have similar to the one of Nancy's? (Please notice how this is worded and be sensitive in your answer if you remember.)

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 01:49 PM
were the necklaces the friends have similar to the one of Nancy's?

Yes, Nancy liked HP's diamond necklace and asked for one in 2007. She picked out 2 she liked (according to Brad) and they obtained the less expensive one. On the stand HP said Nancy's necklace was similar to hers.

ETA: There might be another necklace...I'm recalling a simple silver heart on a short chain given to each of Nancy's friends (and I'm thinking this was after Nancy went missing). Or I'm possibly hallucinating, but I know I saw something about this.

Skittles
10-30-2008, 01:59 PM
Isn't it something how Durham always gets the raleigh news before wral.

Well, their newsroom is now directly across from the courthouse in Raleigh.

Skittles
10-30-2008, 02:02 PM
SW inventories are kind of misleading in some ways. We all know fingerprints are collected at what is believed to be a crime scene but this never shows on a search warrant inventory. There are numerous forensic valued samples collected that don't show up on an inventory list. What we know that was collected and listed on the inventory is most liekly less than half at least of what was collected during the execution of the warrant. If sticks were found it is possible there was some forensic value to them and therefore the collection would not be listed.

Also, and this will bring howling I am sure, but it is not uncommon for LE to provide questions to insurance companies if a person suspected (in LE's mind) as being involved in a murder attempts to claim an insurance benefit. This happens when there is a suspicious death and someone makes a claim for the money - the insuror often requires a deposition. It is not out of the realm of possibility that LE also provided a question or two to TS for the custody deposition. And before all the screeching starts, LE can provide a question but are not willing nor obligated to provide the answer or the interest concerning such question.

Thanks for the info, RC. So Brad's defense team would be finding out only now about the full list of items removed from the house.

Topsail Girl
10-30-2008, 02:11 PM
Yes, Nancy liked HP's diamond necklace and asked for one in 2007. She picked out 2 she liked (according to Brad) and they obtained the less expensive one. On the stand HP said Nancy's necklace was similar to hers.

ETA: There might be another necklace...I'm recalling a simple silver heart on a short chain given to each of Nancy's friends (and I'm thinking this was after Nancy went missing). Or I'm possibly hallucinating, but I know I saw something about this.

SG you are absolutely correct. If you look at interviews with JA and HP you can see the silver heart shaped and I know that these were given to JA and HP by the Rentz's after nancy went missing.

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 02:18 PM
Thanks for the info, RC. So Brad's defense team would be finding out only now about the full list of items removed from the house.

Once Brad was arrested and the lawyer appointed - the process of transferring discovery begins. So yes, the DA would now be required to start turning over in a timely manner, the information from the investigation files to Mr. Kurtz.

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 02:22 PM
Once Brad was arrested and the lawyer appointed - the process of transferring discovery begins. So yes, the DA would now be required to start turning over in a timely manner, the information from the investigation files to Mr. Kurtz.

hmmm....more than 1 way to skin this info seeking cat.
<preparing resume to send to K&B>

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 02:24 PM
hmmm....more than 1 way to skin this info seeking cat.
<preparing resume to send to K&B>


That is really a lowering cause SG - are you sure it would be worth it ?

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 02:29 PM
That is really a lowering cause SG - are you sure it would be worth it ?

I'd resign after I saw the content of all the files...just trying to think outside the box here. :wink:

reddress58
10-30-2008, 02:36 PM
I'd resign after I saw the content of all the files...just trying to think outside the box here. :wink:
Na, don't associate yourself with them...even for the sake of scoop gathering. Much eaiser just to ask Mr. Kurtz to come mow your lawn (or rake leaves this time of year) and take Madame for a walk. Afterwards, invite him to belly up to the bar for a beer and chat.......

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 02:39 PM
<applies for window washing job with company that services K&B offices... askeered of heights....rethinks application>

What's a girl gotta do to get arrested info in this town anyway?

reddress58
10-30-2008, 02:50 PM
<applies for window washing job with company that services K&B offices... askeered of heights....rethinks application>

What's a girl gotta do to get arrested info in this town anyway?
You could start by picketing the WRAL offices and threatening a hunger strike until they post that d**n new SW! Like yesterday is not soon enough for my curiosity.

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 02:52 PM
You could start by pickiting the WRAL offices and threating a hunger strike until they post that d**n new SW! Like yesterday is not soon enough for my curiosity.

It may not be returned yet Reddress since it was just executed yesterday afternoon and last night. Maybe it will be by the end of the day today, maybe not.

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 02:54 PM
I believe they'll post it when they get a copy of the completed/handed-in SW after it's been filed at the courthouse. The search itself took place yesterday and into the night, so it may not have been signed and turned back in yet.

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 02:54 PM
LOL jinx RC!!

reddress58
10-30-2008, 02:56 PM
I believe they'll post it when they get a copy of the completed/handed-in SW after it's been filed at the courthouse. The search itself took place yesterday and into the night, so it may not have been signed and turned back in yet.
Shows how little I know. I thought it had to be filed before the search is made. Wonder how Crump found out? He said "sources".

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 02:57 PM
LOL jinx RC!!

See, even though Ed Crump got the jump on everyone - here we all sit waiting impatiently. I would have preferred not knowing until the warrant could be posted actually. Too many jinxes ! :crazy:

CyberPro
10-30-2008, 03:03 PM
Once Brad was arrested and the lawyer appointed - the process of transferring discovery begins. So yes, the DA would now be required to start turning over in a timely manner, the information from the investigation files to Mr. Kurtz.
{bolding is mine}

In the spirit of civic duty and being a good citizen and all, I will volunteer to act as courier to transfer the goodies um, I mean evidence to Mr. Kurtz...

CyberPro

reddress58
10-30-2008, 03:13 PM
{bolding is mine}

In the spirit of civic duty and being a good citizen and all, I will volunteer to act as courier to transfer the goodies um, I mean evidence to Mr. Kurtz...

CyberPro
You do that, my good man.:computer:

Maja
10-30-2008, 03:51 PM
Perhaps Bella mentioned something about her mommy and the vase and sticks?

Roy23
10-30-2008, 04:24 PM
I would guess that it would be about computers.

reddress58
10-30-2008, 04:45 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3857164/

WRAL aritcle regarding search of Cooper home. No search warrant as yet has been returned.

jilly
10-30-2008, 05:20 PM
SG you are absolutely correct. If you look at interviews with JA and HP you can see the silver heart shaped and I know that these were given to JA and HP by the Rentz's after nancy went missing.

Ohhh my. That is very touching.

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 06:07 PM
Interesting update:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6478990

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 06:19 PM
"Nancy Cooper was reported missing by a friend in mid-July. Brad Cooper told authorities he last saw her that Saturday morning when she went jogging. Police apparently never believed that story and arrested him earlier this week."

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 06:42 PM
I do wish the press would leave his Mother alone and quit showing pictures of her shutting the door in their faces. Just let her be already.

What I found interesting is Mr. Crump does not think the warrant will be sealed and that the other warrants told us little about the actual evidence. He's got that part right no doubt.

Star12
10-30-2008, 06:59 PM
{bolding is mine}

In the spirit of civic duty and being a good citizen and all, I will volunteer to act as courier to transfer the goodies um, I mean evidence to Mr. Kurtz...

CyberPro

I'm a really good assistant. And I have a very sharp pocketknife, (good for slitting envelopes) which has actually passed through the metal detector at the WCCC. Really. They asked me if I had batteries, though. I did admit to them. All was good. And I have a camera phone. I'll email the pics to SG, who will post them immediately. hehehehehe

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 07:12 PM
I'm a really good assistant. And I have a very sharp pocketknife, (good for slitting envelopes) which has actually passed through the metal detector at the WCCC. Really. They asked me if I had batteries, though. I did admit to them. All was good. And I have a camera phone. I'll email the pics to SG, who will post them immediately. hehehehehe

I'll be high up off the ground in one of those window washer contraptions "washing windows"...with a digital SLR camera and a long lens. (I'm sensing a plan coming together much like something we might see in one of the Ocean's 11/12/13 movies.) Too bad Raisin isn't in the area...I just know we could put him to good use, eh?

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 07:13 PM
I do wish the press would leave his Mother alone and quit showing pictures of her shutting the door in their faces. Just let her be already.

I suppose his mother had to leave the house while the SW was being carried out...probably had to go stay at a hotel or something.

Star12
10-30-2008, 07:22 PM
I'll be high up off the ground in one of those window washer contraptions "washing windows"...with a digital SLR camera and a long lens. (I'm sensing a plan coming together much like something we might see in one of the Ocean's 11/12/13 movies.) Too bad Raisin isn't in the area...I just know we could put him to good use, eh?

10th floor, SG. Sure you don't want to reconsider. You go that high, and I swear I'll shut my eyes and head back to Cary. (I skeered of high places.) :chicken:

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 07:45 PM
I'll be high up off the ground in one of those window washer contraptions "washing windows"...with a digital SLR camera and a long lens. (I'm sensing a plan coming together much like something we might see in one of the Ocean's 11/12/13 movies.) Too bad Raisin isn't in the area...I just know we could put him to good use, eh?

One of my best interent friends was cleaning house one day like a mad person and the stock market jumped up 700+ points. I agreed to wash windows the next day just to see if the market would go up. It didn't - it went down. To heck with washing windows friends - not this Bubba. Now I do know a thing or two about in car camera's, maybe i could help you out with the camera work...:crazy: or accidentally running into the lady carrying all the stuff from office to office...

SleuthyGal
10-30-2008, 07:48 PM
one of my best Internet friends was cleaning house one day like a mad personWhy I didn't know you and Brad Boy were good friends!!

Yes, I think we can use a man with your unique skills! :crazy:

raisincharlie
10-30-2008, 07:58 PM
Why I didn't know you and Brad Boy were good friends!!

Yes, I think we can use a man with your unique skills! :crazy:

Suffering AR as you all are aware - has its upside. I could indeed be of assistance in rifling through all that data. I'm pretty sure there is a fair amount. I am still waiting to see what this new warrant is about, I do suspect it is to collect some very specific items either learned through the custody hearing or as a direct result of going through Nancy's Blackberry and or books.

AmarilloByAM
10-31-2008, 01:19 AM
I've been wondering all along since watching & listening to BC's questioning by AS about the sticks in the vase - could these mysterious sticks have been the cause of his neck scratches? Was he "washing the floors" as he called it and scratched his neck on the sticks?

kelbelle
10-31-2008, 01:23 AM
I have been lurking since Nancy went missing. I started running to get in shape about 4 weeks before she disappeared. I was very worried about jogging by myself, even though I run in a "nice" neighborhood. I was getting ready for a run one night, and I read of her disappearance online. This is what drew me to her story. This woman could have been me or anyone I know- my mother, my sister, my friend.

It was not long after her body was found and hearing some of the details (marital problems, etc.) that I came to the conclusion as to what happened. I was so glad to hear that BC was finally arrested for this crime. I have learned much from all of the intelligent Websleuthers posts, and I thank you all for this.

I have started running again, and every time I do so, I think of Nancy.

momto3kids
10-31-2008, 02:00 AM
I have been lurking since Nancy went missing. I started running to get in shape about 4 weeks before she disappeared. I was very worried about jogging by myself, even though I run in a "nice" neighborhood. I was getting ready for a run one night, and I read of her disappearance online. This is what drew me to her story. This woman could have been me or anyone I know- my mother, my sister, my friend.

It was not long after her body was found and hearing some of the details (marital problems, etc.) that I came to the conclusion as to what happended. I was so glad to hear that BC was finally arrested for this crime. I have learned much from all of the intelligent Websleuthers posts, and I thank you all for this.

I have started running again, and every time I do so, I think of Nancy.

:Welcome-12-june: Kelbelle!

It is a story that will draw anyone in, especially a runner who has something in common with NC. Many came to the conclusion early on BC was guilty, and it was a matter of time for his arrest. As you have probably noted our DA is not too quick to move until all his i's are dotted and t's crossed. I feel confident he feels he has the right person who did this horrible crime.

Unfortunately this could be any of us or a member of our family in a domestic violence situation.

kelbelle
10-31-2008, 02:17 AM
Thanks for the warm welcome!!! Glad to finally be out.

Just saw that the prosecutor will determine if BC eligible for DP December 5.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3860178/

momto3kids
10-31-2008, 10:22 AM
Since BC told where the necklace was located, and HP testified NC wore it everywhere and never took it off, IMO this is one item they looked for.

LE most likely knows if she wore it to the BBQ Friday nite, if she did and the chain is broken and not just unlatched it will be another item used against BC. This could also be what caused the scratch on her neck.

Topsail Girl
10-31-2008, 10:41 AM
http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/cooper2searchwarrant103108.pdf

Search Warrant

Sorry Guys - has this been posted?? I haven't seen it till now.

RKAB
10-31-2008, 10:50 AM
http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/cooper2searchwarrant103108.pdf

Search Warrant

Sorry Guys - has this been posted?? I haven't seen it till now.

I knew he wouldn't go very long without a computer. Looks like he bought a new one right after his others were taken with the first search warrants.

Topsail Girl
10-31-2008, 10:52 AM
I knew he wouldn't go very long without a computer. Looks like he bought a new one right after his others were taken with the first search warrants.

Yep and what is up with the 2 left shoes??? Is he that brain dead??? He left 2 right shoes on the shelf - where are the matching left shoes?

I'm sure he did need another computer in order to visit with the girls via web cam but what is it with the 2 yahoo accounts? Why would he need 2? And why did he set them up on July 12th?

RKAB
10-31-2008, 10:54 AM
Yep and what is up with the 2 left shoes??? Is he that brain dead??? He left 2 right shoes on the shelf - where are the matching left shoes?

I'm sure he did need another computer in order to visit with the girls via web cam but what is it with the 2 yahoo accounts? Why would he need 2?

The 2 left shoes seems really weird. Surely he didn't attempt to put two right shoes on her feet???

I had forgotten about the webcam visits so that probably explains a bit of that. Two email accounts seems very much like he's hiding something.

Topsail Girl
10-31-2008, 10:58 AM
The 2 left shoes seems really weird. Surely he didn't attempt to put two right shoes on her feet???

I had forgotten about the webcam visits so that probably explains a bit of that. Two email accounts seems very much like he's hiding something.

Right shoes on her feet is what I was thinking but she wasn't found with any shoes. Apparently they left shoes were not found in the house so I'm thinking he dumped them somewhere.

garner_nc
10-31-2008, 11:22 AM
I thought they took a pair of running shoes in the first warrant but did not specify male/female.

Skittles
10-31-2008, 11:29 AM
One thing from the probable cause section is the detective had viewed footage from Harris Teeter of two separate visits. I wonder if this rules out a third visit at 4:20 or if they just didn't want to mention three visits in the warrant?

Also, they were looking for Brad's clothing, but none was listed as seized (except for shoes) in the items removed.

Topsail Girl
10-31-2008, 11:30 AM
I thought they took a pair of running shoes in the first warrant but did not specify male/female.

Garner if I was at home and could grab my notebook I could tell you for sure. I recall LE did take a pair of running shoes and I don't believe if the specified male or female. I did a quick search and can't find a PDF of the first warrant.

Skittles
10-31-2008, 11:34 AM
I knew he wouldn't go very long without a computer. Looks like he bought a new one right after his others were taken with the first search warrants.

RKAB: He had to get a new computer for the webcam visits with the girls specified in the custody agreements.

RKAB
10-31-2008, 11:36 AM
RKAB: He had to get a new computer for the webcam visits with the girls specified in the custody agreements.

I had totally forgotten about that aspect until Topsail Girl mentioned it too! :)

Skittles
10-31-2008, 11:37 AM
Garner if I was at home and could grab my notebook I could tell you for sure. I recall LE did take a pair of running shoes and I don't believe if the specified male or female. I did a quick search and can't find a PDF of the first warrant.

TG: SleuthyGal put the list of seized items from the first search at the top of the "Evidence" thread.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 11:38 AM
Right shoes on her feet is what I was thinking but she wasn't found with any shoes. Apparently they left shoes were not found in the house so I'm thinking he dumped them somewhere.

If LE is looking for them it seems logical to think no shoes where found where Nancy's body was found.

Brad obviously can't dance - two left feet :crazy:

Panic set in to not notice two shoes for the same foot...have to wonder if between the first and second trip to HT he actually noticed shoes instead of laundry detergent.

garner_nc
10-31-2008, 11:47 AM
First Warrant

http://www.wral.com/news/local/flash/3470376/

Item #9 - 1 pair of blue/gray tennis shoes

If I killed my wife, I would be cleaning and disposing of EVERYTHING that could link me to the crime that the first Warrant missed. You would have to be an idiot to leave behind shoes that did not match if you "disposed" of a pair similar.

How come the CPD did not seize all the thumb drives, CD-R's, DVD-R during their first search? Or was this to see if he had done anything since the initial search.

I have multiple email accounts. One for JUNK SPAM, one for my resume when job hunting, and one for personal. For BC, maybe one email was for his lawyers/personal and one was for Junk or the Rentz family.

If I knew the CPD had my previous email information and were reading all my emails prior to July 12 - then I would definitely create new ones for my privacy.

Now - the 2 pairs of (RIGHT) shoes were in the garage. Is it possible that when he "cleaned" up the garage that he thought they were a pair and tossed the 2 lefts not realizing they were different? Especially if they were old and belonged to NC. They were also a different brand then what he said in the Depo.

SleuthyGal
10-31-2008, 11:53 AM
OMG what a dumb:behind:.

Did you notice that detectives were back in his house on AUGUST 13th? (but no SW on the 13th...) That's when they saw the 2 right ASICS shoes in the garage. Wonder how many pairs of running shoes Nancy had? And if the pair they removed in the original SW were hers?

Was he watching the movie, "My Left Foot?" :rolleyes:

For someone supposedly smart he sure isn't very bright. He had ALLLLLL that extra time to get rid of everything. Stupid is as stupid does. Watch: he'll get nailed on the 2 right running shoes found as well as keeping the diamond pendant necklace. Greedy & Stupid...he fits the description.

Skittles
10-31-2008, 11:53 AM
First Warrant

http://www.wral.com/news/local/flash/3470376/

Item #9 - 1 pair of blue/gray tennis shoes

If I killed my wife, I would be cleaning and disposing of EVERYTHING that could link me to the crime that the first Warrant missed. You would have to be an idiot to leave behind shoes that did not match if you "disposed" of a pair similar.

How come the CPD did not seize all the thumb drives, CD-R's, DVD-R during their first search? Or was this to see if he had done anything since the initial search.

I have multiple email accounts. One for JUNK SPAM, one for my resume when job hunting, and one for personal. For BC, maybe one email was for his lawyers/personal and one was for Junk or the Rentz family.

If I knew the CPD had my previous email information and were reading all my emails prior to July 12 - then I would definitely create new ones for my privacy.

Now - the 2 pairs of (RIGHT) shoes were in the garage. Is it possible that when he "cleaned" up the garage that he thought they were a pair and tossed the 2 lefts not realizing they were different? Especially if they were old and belonged to NC. They were also a different brand then what he said in the Depo.


The shoes were in the laundry room on a shelf, not the garage.

I agree that multiple emails are normal. I have four right now.

CyberPro
10-31-2008, 12:00 PM
The shoes were in the laundry room on a shelf, not the garage.

I agree that multiple emails are normal. I have four right now.

According to the warrant, the incorrectly paired shoes were placed side by side on the shelf. So, this was either an oversight by NC, or BC knocked them off the shelf in a rush to grab a pair, then scooped up 2 shoes and put the other two on. Most likely he never tried to put them on her feet, just got them to toss somewhere so they would not be there when LE started looking.

I guess now we know one reason why LE did not think NC left to go running that morning.

I have multiple e-mail accounts too, but some of them I rarely check, mostly to dump the SPAM. I use these accounts when a site requires an e-mail address, but I do not trust the site not to add me to a spam list.

CyberPro

SleuthyGal
10-31-2008, 12:00 PM
I have multiple emails as well...probably 5 or 6, if I include work in there. It's not the # of accounts...it's what they're used for and, more importantly, the content of what is found therein.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 12:00 PM
OMG what a dumb:behind:.

Did you notice that detectives were back in his house on AUGUST 13th? (but no SW on the 13th...) That's when they saw the 2 right ASICS shoes in the garage. Wonder how many pairs of running shoes Nancy had? And if the pair they removed in the original SW were hers?

Was he watching the movie, "My Left Foot?" :rolleyes:

For someone supposedly smart he sure isn't very bright. He had ALLLLLL that extra time to get rid of everything. Stupid is as stupid does. Watch: he'll get nailed on the 2 right running shoes found as well as keeping the diamond pendant necklace. Greedy & Stupid...he fits the description.

I bet that August 13th date is a typo. I would venture to say he didn't have as much time as he thought or wanted, JA stopped his clock with that call to 911. I do wonder though since he was in a different shoes between the two HT trips if he actually saw Nancy's shoes in the laundry room when he was looking at the detergent and immediately grabbed two shoes and took them to dispose of on his second trip to HT as insurance so to speak. When he realized he had two shoes of the same foot he moved the other shoes to the garage since he made a point of telling LE her shoes were normally in the laundry room.

SleuthyGal
10-31-2008, 12:02 PM
I guess now we know one reason why LE did not think NC left to go running that morning.

Oh yeah, that would be a big hint right there! I'm sure someone somewhere will try to suggest that Nancy was in such a rush to get her run in that she put 2 left shoes on. :rolleyes:

garner_nc
10-31-2008, 12:05 PM
Skittles...

On Sunday, July 13, 208 Brad Cooper advised affiant that a pair of Nancy Cooper's running shoes, which Brad described as dark blue in color 'Saucony' running shoes were missing from a shelf within the laundry room in the residence. Brad advised that he assumed that she had been wearing this pair of running shoes when she exited residence on the morning of Saturday, July 12, 2008. Two (2) shoes for the right foot, which were both 'ASICS' and dark in color, but different styles from each other, were observed at the Cooper residence on August 13, 2008 by affiant in the attached garage on a shelf. These two (2) shoes for the right foot were placed beside each other on the shelf as if they were a pair. Affiant is seeking to locate the matching shoes for the left foot for each respective style of ASICS running shoes.

SleuthyGal
10-31-2008, 12:07 PM
I hope the date 8/13 either isn't a typo or is quickly corrected in an amended document. Don't want the warrant to be thrown out because of a technicality.

RKAB
10-31-2008, 12:08 PM
I have multiple emails as well...probably 5 or 6, if I include work in there. It's not the # of accounts...it's what they're used for and, more importantly, the content of what is found therein.

For an account like Yahoo or MSN or whatnot, can LE gain access without the passwords if the mail is not downloaded into your regular email program (like Outlook)? Is there a way that they can compel Yahoo to give them access to the account or do they have to get the password from the suspect? I wonder without a key logging program how they get in.

garner_nc
10-31-2008, 12:10 PM
I bet JA can tell us what brand she was currently running in. He states 'Saucony' running shoes in the Depo video. If JA states she was currently wearing ASICS and not 'Saucony' then that is ANOTHER red flag.

Skittles
10-31-2008, 12:12 PM
Skittles...

On Sunday, July 13, 208 Brad Cooper advised affiant that a pair of Nancy Cooper's running shoes, which Brad described as dark blue in color 'Saucony' running shoes were missing from a shelf within the laundry room in the residence. Brad advised that he assumed that she had been wearing this pair of running shoes when she exited residence on the morning of Saturday, July 12, 2008. Two (2) shoes for the right foot, which were both 'ASICS' and dark in color, but different styles from each other, were observed at the Cooper residence on August 13, 2008 by affiant in the attached garage on a shelf. These two (2) shoes for the right foot were placed beside each other on the shelf as if they were a pair. Affiant is seeking to locate the matching shoes for the left foot for each respective style of ASICS running shoes.


Mea culpa! Thanks for the correction.

CyberPro
10-31-2008, 12:12 PM
For an account like Yahoo or MSN or whatnot, can LE gain access without the passwords if the mail is not downloaded into your regular email program (like Outlook)? Is there a way that they can compel Yahoo to give them access to the account or do they have to get the password from the suspect? I wonder without a key logging program how they get in.

RKAB,

I am nearly certain that LE can force Yahoo to give them the password, or at least the contents and logs of the account, with a subpoena.

CyberPro

garner_nc
10-31-2008, 12:14 PM
For an account like Yahoo or MSN or whatnot, can LE gain access without the passwords if the mail is not downloaded into your regular email program (like Outlook)? Is there a way that they can compel Yahoo to give them access to the account or do they have to get the password from the suspect? I wonder without a key logging program how they get in.

I believe they would have to obtain a separate warrant and issue it to Yahoo.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 12:15 PM
RKAB,

I am nearly certain that LE can force Yahoo to give them the password, or at least the contents and logs of the account, with a subpoena.

CyberPro

Getting into Yahoo accounts is not difficult provided you have sufficient information about a person - ask the freak in Tennessee who thought it was fun to get into a political figure's email account. It happens.

Skittles
10-31-2008, 12:17 PM
Another point on running shoes in general: serious runners usually alternate pairs of shoes day to day, so it would be normal to have two or more active pairs.

garner_nc
10-31-2008, 12:19 PM
Item 19 says - 4 pairs of foot wear.

I wonder if they found the left sides. Guessing this is what was taken.

1 pair of ASICS belonging to NC - Left (found) and Right
1 pair of ASICS belonging to NC - Left (found) and Right
1 pair of shoes belonging to BC - HT trip #1
1 pair of shoes belonging to BC - HT trip #2

CentralAlberta
10-31-2008, 12:28 PM
As calm and cool as BC appears though all this, he must have been in panic mode in the minutes/hours after Nancy's murder. Say all the shows were lined up on a shelf, pairs matcing but not necessarily right left right left, etc. BC is paniccing & needs to dispose of a pair of shoes. He grabs 2 shoes off the shelf without noticing they are for the same foot. After all is said and done I don't think it would be on his to do list to go back and check if he took the "right" shoes.

Skittles
10-31-2008, 12:34 PM
I've been wondering all along since watching & listening to BC's questioning by AS about the sticks in the vase - could these mysterious sticks have been the cause of his neck scratches? Was he "washing the floors" as he called it and scratched his neck on the sticks?

Amarillo: I didn't want your point to get ignored in all the flurry over the returned warrant.

I had thought Nancy could have grabbed one of the sticks. Another thought was the vase got tipped over when he carried her out or in a struggle, and a stick got caught behind the dresser. If she was killed upstairs he would have had to carry her through the foyer to get to the garage or to go out the front door.

RKAB
10-31-2008, 12:35 PM
As calm and cool as BC appears though all this, he must have been in panic mode in the minutes/hours after Nancy's murder.

I think you're definately right. His time was particularly limited if he had to get everything "done" before the girls woke up. Small children definately don't keep secrets well!

CentralAlberta
10-31-2008, 12:43 PM
Amarillo: I didn't want your point to get ignored in all the flurry over the returned warrant.

I had thought Nancy could have grabbed one of the sticks. Another thought was the vase got tipped over when he carried her out or in a struggle, and a stick got caught behind the dresser. If she was killed upstairs he would have had to carry her through the foyer to get to the garage or to go out the front door.

Maybe some of the sticks got caught in her hair & dropped onto the floor of the garage, or there were particles of wood in the trunk liner that didn't get vacumed out.

Maja
10-31-2008, 12:54 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3863538/



For some reason, I thought I read where the necklace was found in a desk some time ago and that NC's wedding ring was at the jewelers...am I mistaken?

If her ring really was at the jewelers, I wonder if the jeweler testified as to the day it was dropped off and by WHOM...

Maja
10-31-2008, 01:01 PM
Skittles...

On Sunday, July 13, 208 Brad Cooper advised affiant that a pair of Nancy Cooper's running shoes, which Brad described as dark blue in color 'Saucony' running shoes were missing from a shelf within the laundry room in the residence. Brad advised that he assumed that she had been wearing this pair of running shoes when she exited residence on the morning of Saturday, July 12, 2008. Two (2) shoes for the right foot, which were both 'ASICS' and dark in color, but different styles from each other, were observed at the Cooper residence on August 13, 2008 by affiant in the attached garage on a shelf. These two (2) shoes for the right foot were placed beside each other on the shelf as if they were a pair. Affiant is seeking to locate the matching shoes for the left foot for each respective style of ASICS running shoes.

Boy howdy! Seems BC would have been better suited not even to touch any of NC's running shoes. Who remembers every pair she has anyway?

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 01:03 PM
Ed Crump video report:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/index

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 01:20 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3863538/



For some reason, I thought I read where the necklace was found in a desk some time ago and that NC's wedding ring was at the jewelers...am I mistaken?

If her ring really was at the jewelers, I wonder if the jeweler testified as to the day it was dropped off and by WHOM...

In Brad's October 2 deposition he indicates the diamond pendent is at the residence in a desk. He also indicated that Nancy's engagement ring was at the jewelers but he did not know where the band was.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 01:29 PM
SG - Detective Young has somewhat pinpointed what the inconsistencies are with respect to what Brad told LE he and Nancy did on the 11th and he on the 12th of July. This would be video segments 7 and 8 according to Skittles list. A comparison of the first SW probable cause to the video indicates some of these inconsistencies. I know you wondering about this, it is interesting to go back and look and read. Hmmmmmm

Skittles
10-31-2008, 01:44 PM
In Brad's October 2 deposition he indicates the diamond pendent is at the residence in a desk. He also indicated that Nancy's engagement ring was at the jewelers but he did not know where the band was.

Are you trying to be funny, RC? You, too, have spent too much time listening to his deposition. Brad sure "indicated" a lot, or at least he said Nancy indicated. One of his favorite words, apparently, along with "handful."

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 02:00 PM
Are you trying to be funny, RC? You, too, have spent too much time listening to his deposition. Brad sure "indicated" a lot, or at least he said Nancy indicated. One of his favorite words, apparently, along with "handful."

I have never really mastered the fine arts of humor or sarcasm when pecking away at this keyboard but I did note Brad indicated much but said little.

I have spent a fair amount of time watching the videos, as more information comes to light it is very interesting to go back to certain statements made by the one now jailed. Totally different light shown on some of those statements when equipped with additional information. He was indeed pretty twitching while talking about Nancy's running shoes. :crazy:

Thank you for your notes - extremely helpful :clap:

Maja
10-31-2008, 02:46 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3709940/

Of all the deposition videos...the beginning of this one where BC looks into the camera and purpose and attitude, spins his wedding band around. It's really creepy to me.

SleuthyGal
10-31-2008, 02:55 PM
SG - Detective Young has somewhat pinpointed what the inconsistencies are with respect to what Brad told LE he and Nancy did on the 11th and he on the 12th of July. This would be video segments 7 and 8 according to Skittles list. A comparison of the first SW probable cause to the video indicates some of these inconsistencies. I know you wondering about this, it is interesting to go back and look and read. Hmmmmmm

Thanks RC! :)

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 03:06 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3863538/



For some reason, I thought I read where the necklace was found in a desk some time ago and that NC's wedding ring was at the jewelers...am I mistaken?

If her ring really was at the jewelers, I wonder if the jeweler testified as to the day it was dropped off and by WHOM...



This comment has nothing to do with BC or her murder. I doubt very seriously that NC never took off her necklace. From one of the pictures, you can see that it is a loose necklace (hangs down) with a pretty thin chain. How many women sleep with these type of necklaces on? And shower with it on (like is asserted in the video)? Also, almost all of the pictures in the picture thread do not show her wearing it (one does). I know you need to establish when she got it and when those pictures were taken, but it should be easy to find pictures of her from that the time she got it until July 12th.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 03:09 PM
One thing from the probable cause section is the detective had viewed footage from Harris Teeter of two separate visits. I wonder if this rules out a third visit at 4:20 or if they just didn't want to mention three visits in the warrant?

Also, they were looking for Brad's clothing, but none was listed as seized (except for shoes) in the items removed.

I think it pretty much rules it out. They were looking for clothes worn in the 2 videos. If there was a 4:20 visit, those clothes would be of more importance since they would have occurred after dumping the body. So I believe this proves there was not a 4:20 am visit to HT, and only the 2 that have been verified by video posted on K&B.

SleuthyGal
10-31-2008, 03:09 PM
read the latest SW...JA Young says pictures were produced that showed Nancy wearing that very necklace all throughout that vacation, including when she was swimming.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 03:15 PM
Item 19 says - 4 pairs of foot wear.

I wonder if they found the left sides. Guessing this is what was taken.

1 pair of ASICS belonging to NC - Left (found) and Right
1 pair of ASICS belonging to NC - Left (found) and Right
1 pair of shoes belonging to BC - HT trip #1
1 pair of shoes belonging to BC - HT trip #2


It does sound like he found the matching shoes. Also, again, Brad said a pair of Sauconys were missing. I'm sure he knows the difference between Sauconys and Asics.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 03:16 PM
read the latest SW...JA Young says pictures were produced that showed Nancy wearing that very necklace all throughout that vacation, including when she was swimming.

I read that. But again, do you honestly believe she would sleep with it on?

piedmont
10-31-2008, 03:30 PM
I read that. But again, do you honestly believe she would sleep with it on?

Yes, I can see sleeping in a very special necklace that you loved and just always wanted to have on because it made you feel good. I don't think I'd worry too much about it breaking while I wore it to sleep. jmo

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 03:32 PM
Yes, I can see sleeping in a very special necklace that you loved and just always wanted to have on because it made you feel good. I don't think I'd worry too much about it breaking while I wore it to sleep. jmo

Okay. It would be easy to prove if she didn't since I'm sure there have been many pictures of her taken this year. I wonder when she got the necklace. Was this the one she got last October?

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 03:36 PM
One thing from the probable cause section is the detective had viewed footage from Harris Teeter of two separate visits. I wonder if this rules out a third visit at 4:20 or if they just didn't want to mention three visits in the warrant?

Also, they were looking for Brad's clothing, but none was listed as seized (except for shoes) in the items removed.

Skittles I have really been studying on this comment. I'm not sure it rules out for sure an earlier visit to HT but what it does seem to confirm, at least to me, is that LE seems to think the trips to HT were not exactly legitimate in the expressed purpose. The approach seems to be either LE thought he had these clothes on during an altercation or he had them on when he disposed of Nancy's body. It seems to me from reading it 100 times, LE believes Nancy's body was placed at the disposal site either right before 6 am or somewhere between 6 and 7 am. It also suggests, that because LE is wanting to obtain those clothes, that LE does not believe that Nancy made the 6:40 am phone call. Dunno about a 4:20 HT trip and what this wording does or does not say about it.

piedmont
10-31-2008, 03:37 PM
Okay. It would be easy to prove if she didn't since I'm sure there have been many pictures of her taken this year. I wonder when she got the necklace. Was this the one she got last October?

I believe that's correct. Her friends, or at least one of them, must be pretty certain she always wore it. You're right, there should be tons of pictures to check from last October on, since she had such a social life.

And it could be that she came to wear it constantly as time wore on-could have taken on some kind of meaning for her (or maybe I'm getting carried away!) ha.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 03:40 PM
I believe that's correct. Her friends, or at least one of them, must be pretty certain she always wore it. You're right, there should be tons of pictures to check from last October on, since she had such a social life.

And it could be that she came to wear it constantly as time wore on-could have taken on some kind of meaning for her (or maybe I'm getting carried away!) ha.

It's just when someone uses superlatives like "always" and "never", that doesn't leave any room for error. If BC can show 1 single picture and/or video of her not wearing it during the last few months of her life, it makes the statement that she always wore it incorrect, and that testimony meaningless.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 03:42 PM
I believe that's correct. Her friends, or at least one of them, must be pretty certain she always wore it. You're right, there should be tons of pictures to check from last October on, since she had such a social life.

And it could be that she came to wear it constantly as time wore on-could have taken on some kind of meaning for her (or maybe I'm getting carried away!) ha.

I believe that the last paragraph on page 4 of the probable cause section of the warrant specifies that LE did confirm Nancy wore this all the time and during all activities to include sleeping. Not only through friends but from a review of photographs.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 03:49 PM
I believe that the last paragraph on page 4 of the probable cause section of the warrant specifies that LE did confirm Nancy wore this all the time and during all activities to include sleeping. Not only through friends but from a review of photographs.

They have 2 pictures of her wearing it on vacation. I don't believe that confirms she wore it at all times including sleeping. Maybe she didn't feel comfortable leaving her jewelry in a hotel room.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 03:53 PM
They have 2 pictures of her wearing it on vacation. I don't believe that confirms she wore it at all times including sleeping. Maybe she didn't feel comfortable leaving her jewelry in a hotel room.

Since we don't know what those pictures showed, I suspect we have no way to know the answer. However, Detective Young does use the word confirmed. He ought to know what he saw. Not sure how you conclude it was only 2 photos.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 03:58 PM
Since we don't know what those pictures showed, I suspect we have no way to know the answer. However, Detective Young does use the word confirmed. He ought to know what he saw. Not sure how you conclude it was only 2 photos.

You're right...he pointed out the 2 of her on a boat and in a bathing suit, and said he observed others. I'm guessing he pointed out those 2 to show times where most people would not wear a necklace. All of the pictures appear to have been from that trip, so I'm not sure how you can draw a conclusion from that. And why would BC have taken the time to remove the necklace?

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 04:02 PM
You're right...he pointed out the 2 of her on a boat and in a bathing suit, and said he observed others. I'm guessing he pointed out those 2 to show times where most people would not wear a necklace. All of the pictures appear to have been from that trip, so I'm not sure how you can draw a conclusion from that. And why would BC have taken the time to remove the necklace?

I didn't draw any conclusion, Detective Young wrote it. If the necklace is not broken then someone took it off, no idea who or why. If it is broken, well. As concerned as Brad was about the money spent on the necklace, I can understand he would want to keep it for value alone given his constant worry about money.

Star12
10-31-2008, 04:11 PM
This comment has nothing to do with BC or her murder. I doubt very seriously that NC never took off her necklace. From one of the pictures, you can see that it is a loose necklace (hangs down) with a pretty thin chain. How many women sleep with these type of necklaces on? And shower with it on (like is asserted in the video)? Also, almost all of the pictures in the picture thread do not show her wearing it (one does). I know you need to establish when she got it and when those pictures were taken, but it should be easy to find pictures of her from that the time she got it until July 12th.

I do. I always have. And my chain is extremely dainty. It's dang hard to put those itty bitty chains on and off. And I seriously doubt that Nancy wanted BC to do it for her. Not that he would, twice a day, anyway. In an earlier discussion regarding this same issue we found that those pics "without" were from before she had the necklace.

Maja
10-31-2008, 04:13 PM
I didn't draw any conclusion, Detective Young wrote it. If the necklace is not broken then someone took it off, no idea who or why. If it is broken, well. As concerned as Brad was about the money spent on the necklace, I can understand he would want to keep it for value alone given his constant worry about money.

Again, in panic mode. No matter, he doesn't get to keep the necklace or sell it. If he was not charged, seems the if he left it on NC, he would get it back anyway. Perhaps the mark on her neck was from him breaking it off, if it's found broken. Or, he has had PLENTY of time to have it repaired if he did break it.

Maja
10-31-2008, 04:19 PM
This comment has nothing to do with BC or her murder. I doubt very seriously that NC never took off her necklace. From one of the pictures, you can see that it is a loose necklace (hangs down) with a pretty thin chain. How many women sleep with these type of necklaces on? And shower with it on (like is asserted in the video)? Also, almost all of the pictures in the picture thread do not show her wearing it (one does). I know you need to establish when she got it and when those pictures were taken, but it should be easy to find pictures of her from that the time she got it until July 12th.


Would seem to me a very expensive diamond would dangle from a pretty solid chain. I believe there were numerous photos during her last vacation as well as her last BBQ.

If I was ever found without my necklace on, you bet your bippy it should be suspect. I've worn it for over 7 years and only recently took it off for an x-ray.

I think, at the end of the day, seems it just adds to the probable mound of other evidence/eye-brow raisers.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 04:21 PM
Again, in panic mode. No matter, he doesn't get to keep the necklace or sell it. If he was not charged, seems the if he left it on NC, he would get it back anyway. Perhaps the mark on her neck was from him breaking it off, if it's found broken. Or, he has had PLENTY of time to have it repaired if he did break it.

I have a tendency to think the mark on Nancy's neck may well have been made by the necklace in question.

Star12
10-31-2008, 04:26 PM
Would seem to me a very expensive diamond would dangle from a pretty solid chain. I believe there were numerous photos during her last vacation as well as her last BBQ.

If I was ever found without my necklace on, you bet your bippy it should be suspect. I've worn it for over 7 years and only recently took it off for an x-ray.

I think, at the end of the day, seems it just adds to the probable mound of other evidence/eye-brow raisers.

Any chain can be broken, and most can be repaired. (I have sold many very expensive necklaces on very thin, dainty chains). And I doubt that BC would have had it repaired if it were broken, because that costs money

Star12
10-31-2008, 04:29 PM
Would seem to me a very expensive diamond would dangle from a pretty solid chain. I believe there were numerous photos during her last vacation as well as her last BBQ.

If I was ever found without my necklace on, you bet your bippy it should be suspect. I've worn it for over 7 years and only recently took it off for an x-ray.

I think, at the end of the day, seems it just adds to the probable mound of other evidence/eye-brow raisers.


I have a tendency to think the mark on Nancy's neck may well have been made by the necklace in question.

Either that or he broke it while strangling her, especially if his hand/s got tangled in the chain. Could be he didn't find it until later while he was "tidying up" and put it in the drawer.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 04:52 PM
I do. I always have. And my chain is extremely dainty. It's dang hard to put those itty bitty chains on and off. And I seriously doubt that Nancy wanted BC to do it for her. Not that he would, twice a day, anyway. In an earlier discussion regarding this same issue we found that those pics "without" were from before she had the necklace.

Fair enough.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 04:54 PM
Either that or he broke it while strangling her, especially if his hand/s got tangled in the chain. Could be he didn't find it until later while he was "tidying up" and put it in the drawer.

Star - High Rock Lake - not the same as Lake Norman right ?

Brad said Nancy went to Lake Norman in his deposition, yet in the PC section of the warrant it appears the family trip the week before her murder was actually to High Rock Lake and Hilton Head. Hmmmmm

Star12
10-31-2008, 05:04 PM
Star - High Rock Lake - not the same as Lake Norman right ?

Brad said Nancy went to Lake Norman in his deposition, yet in the PC section of the warrant it appears the family trip the week before her murder was actually to High Rock Lake and Hilton Head. Hmmmmm

They are roughly in the same area, near Charlotte, and there was testimony that the Rentzes left from the Charlotte airport.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 05:07 PM
They are roughly in the same area, near Charlotte, and there was testimony that the Rentzes left from the Charlotte airport.

Guess I am wondering why he is now whinning about missing his kids when the week before Nancy's murder, he obviously didn't even know where they were, only an area and nothing about Hilton Head.

CyberPro
10-31-2008, 05:08 PM
Would seem to me a very expensive diamond would dangle from a pretty solid chain. I believe there were numerous photos during her last vacation as well as her last BBQ.

If I was ever found without my necklace on, you bet your bippy it should be suspect. I've worn it for over 7 years and only recently took it off for an x-ray.

I think, at the end of the day, seems it just adds to the probable mound of other evidence/eye-brow raisers.

Well, I am a guy, so this might be different, but I have a necklace that has a lot of meaning to me, and I NEVER take it off. The only times it has been off my neck in the past 18 years was when I have had surgery and could not wear it (my wife wears it for me then). I also wear my watch constantly.

I can see other than the monetary value of the necklace, if it was left on the body it would tend to rule out robbery as a motive for the attack, and if she was not sexually assaulted, it leaves nothing much in the way of a motive for a stranger to have done it.

CyberPro

CyberPro
10-31-2008, 05:11 PM
Star - High Rock Lake - not the same as Lake Norman right ?

Brad said Nancy went to Lake Norman in his deposition, yet in the PC section of the warrant it appears the family trip the week before her murder was actually to High Rock Lake and Hilton Head. Hmmmmm

RC,

High Rock is on the Yadkin River chain and the closest town is Lexington, NC.

Lake Norman is close to Charlotte, and has much more expensive homes on it, some worth Millions.

CyberPro

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 05:14 PM
RC,

High Rock is on the Yadkin River chain and the closest town is Lexington, NC.

Lake Norman is close to Charlotte, and has much more expensive homes on it, some worth Millions.

CyberPro

Thanks - I checked map quest and can see the locations now. I am just a bit surprised with the Lake Norman comment after looking - general area yeah but still surprised Brad didn't know. Guess I shouldn't be.

garner_nc
10-31-2008, 05:23 PM
I'm curious who he received an email from and what was the context of the messages.

Surely he would not have emailed someone with "I got rid of her, now we can be together. (ie.French girl)"

But the warrant says he "received". Does not say he sent emails.

MoonFlwr
10-31-2008, 07:04 PM
Just finished reading the latest search warrant info (thanks Maja, for posting the link in the links section! :) )

I have probably missed a discussion about the video surveillance from Harris Teeter, so please bear with me if it's been cleared up already. It states that surveillance shows he made purchases at 2 separate times. Have those times been released? I still have confusion about this point because of the alleged 4 am (ish) purchase and then the later one/s.

TIA :)

garner_nc
10-31-2008, 07:11 PM
Just finished reading the latest search warrant info (thanks Maja, for posting the link in the links section! :) )

I have probably missed a discussion about the video surveillance from Harris Teeter, so please bear with me if it's been cleared up already. It states that surveillance shows he made purchases at 2 separate times. Have those times been released? I still have confusion about this point because of the alleged 4 am (ish) purchase and then the later one/s.

TIA :)

I believe based on this last warrant it is confirmed that there were only 2 trips to HT. One at 6:20 and 6:40..or something close to those times. The 4:20am time frame was originally mentioned but based on information released to the public, that trip has yet to be confirmed. The detective on the warrant mentions only 2 trips and there is video of both trips on BC's attorneys website. Neither are at 4:20am.

MoonFlwr
10-31-2008, 07:28 PM
I believe based on this last warrant it is confirmed that there were only 2 trips to HT. One at 6:20 and 6:40..or something close to those times. The 4:20am time frame was originally mentioned but based on information released to the public, that trip has yet to be confirmed. The detective on the warrant mentions only 2 trips and there is video of both trips on BC's attorneys website. Neither are at 4:20am.

Oh ok! Thank you for the informative response! :)

SusieClue
10-31-2008, 07:43 PM
Well, I am a guy, so this might be different, but I have a necklace that has a lot of meaning to me, and I NEVER take it off. The only times it has been off my neck in the past 18 years was when I have had surgery and could not wear it (my wife wears it for me then). I also wear my watch constantly.

I can see other than the monetary value of the necklace, if it was left on the body it would tend to rule out robbery as a motive for the attack, and if she was not sexually assaulted, it leaves nothing much in the way of a motive for a stranger to have done it.

CyberPro

1st: very sweet that your wife wears it for you.:blowkiss:
2nd: this is interesting...it was kind of a lose lose for him. He "should" have taken it and thrown it away if he was smart - but he got greedy and stupid. :clap: I too, have a diamond pendant I wear daily. curious about her diamond earrings...how she only had the one pendant on.

piedmont
10-31-2008, 07:54 PM
I think we'll all be happy once we finally know for sure if he made a 4:20 a.m. trip to HT or not and also who made the 6:40 phone call.

per_curiam
10-31-2008, 07:56 PM
I don't recall where I read this on WS, but IIRC the diamond pendant necklace was an anniversary gift from last year. Not sure on that. It seems strange that there would be any anniversary gift of that magnitude between them, due to their crumbling relationship at the time. I need more facts on when the pendant was given to her.

piedmont
10-31-2008, 07:59 PM
I don't recall where I read this on WS, but IIRC the diamond pendant necklace was an anniversary gift from last year. Not sure on that. It seems strange that there would be any anniversary gift of that magnitude between them, due to their crumbling relationship at the time. I need more facts on when the pendant was given to her.

IIRC, I think she requested it because she said she'd had a bad year and deserved it. Not sure it had anything to do with an anniversary. I think it was purchased in the Fall of 2007??

per_curiam
10-31-2008, 08:00 PM
Piedmont, I'm thinking October 2007 myself.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 08:10 PM
Oh ok! Thank you for the informative response! :)

The information for the 4:20 am trip came from MT3K. She was told by 2 different people that he purchased cleaning detergent at 4:20 and at least one saw the video timestamp of 4:20. So she believes there were 3 trips to HT. The info on the search warrant seems to confirm there were only the 2 shown on K&B website.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 08:12 PM
I think we'll all be happy once we finally know for sure if he made a 4:20 a.m. trip to HT or not and also who made the 6:40 phone call.

I would say the search warrant makes it pretty conclusive (along with K&B saying there were only the 2 trips). LE was trying to obtain the clothing he wore during the 2 trips (again, they specified 2 trips). If there was a 3rd trip, I'm sure they would have wanted the clothing from that trip as well, and would have needed to say that in the search warrant. I don't believe they will ever come out and say there wasn't a 4:20 am trip because that would only be responding to public speculation.

Skittles
10-31-2008, 08:15 PM
Piedmont, I'm thinking October 2007 myself.

Yes, in the deposition Brad says it was October or November, 2007.

per_curiam
10-31-2008, 08:23 PM
Yes, in the deposition Brad says it was October or November, 2007.

Thanks, Skittles. I knew that I'd read it somewhere. So much info!

Even if BC made a 4:20 AM trip to HT in addition to the other two, LE could have held on to that info. We'll only have to wait and see. The deed is done that matters to me: BC is jailed :behindbar:behindbar The rest will evolve and unfold.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 08:47 PM
Thanks, Skittles. I knew that I'd read it somewhere. So much info!

Even if BC made a 4:20 AM trip to HT in addition to the other two, LE could have held on to that info. We'll only have to wait and see. The deed is done that matters to me: BC is jailed :behindbar:behindbar The rest will evolve and unfold.

What would be the point? They were executing a search warrant that included taking clothes he wore to HT. Why get the clothing from 2 of the visits but not the 3rd? If they have information, they have to give it to his lawyers anyways...so it's not like this could be a trump card or something. LE is not going to address the 4:20 trip because it didn't happen.

MoonFlwr
10-31-2008, 08:47 PM
The information for the 4:20 am trip came from MT3K. She was told by 2 different people that he purchased cleaning detergent at 4:20 and at least one saw the video timestamp of 4:20. So she believes there were 3 trips to HT. The info on the search warrant seems to confirm there were only the 2 shown on K&B website.

Yes, I was 'present' when MomTo3Kids posted that information and said how she had come by it, that is why I am curious as to the facts about the HT visits (as are all of us!)

fran
10-31-2008, 09:07 PM
Just finished reading the latest search warrant info (thanks Maja, for posting the link in the links section! :) )

I have probably missed a discussion about the video surveillance from Harris Teeter, so please bear with me if it's been cleared up already. It states that surveillance shows he made purchases at 2 separate times. Have those times been released? I still have confusion about this point because of the alleged 4 am (ish) purchase and then the later one/s.

TIA :)

FWIW, from what I've gathered from the SW, LE was seeking info from the 'video' provided by K&B on their website. There was no mention of the 4:20 (4:19) visit because????? PERHAPS LE knows WHAT BC was wearing in the 4:20 video and there was no need to mention the earlier trip because?????

IMHO, it is STILL NOT proven there was not a 4:20 (4:19) trip.

Just sayin',
fran

per_curiam
10-31-2008, 09:09 PM
Yes, I was 'present' when MomTo3Kids posted that information and said how she had come by it, that is why I am curious as to the facts about the HT visits (as are all of us!)

As was I, MoonFlower. That subject, the possibility of a 4:20 AM visit to HT by BC seems to bring sparks within this community of WS. *I'm* not going to jump on anyone! Que sera, and all that jive. Mom has a unique perspective with the HT, whether the 4:20 AM happened or not. I hate playing wait and see. Guess I have no choice.

per_curiam
10-31-2008, 09:12 PM
What would be the point? They were executing a search warrant that included taking clothes he wore to HT. Why get the clothing from 2 of the visits but not the 3rd? If they have information, they have to give it to his lawyers anyways...so it's not like this could be a trump card or something. LE is not going to address the 4:20 trip because it didn't happen.

Maybe LE has the clothes from the 4:20 AM visit, if there was one. Do you have specific knowledge that there was no 4:20 AM HT visit by Brad? :waitasec:

Star12
10-31-2008, 09:20 PM
It seems to me that whether or not there was a 4:20 trip, Mom's alert and the speculation about it on this board has given us some valuable i'nformation. We got the receipts, the survellaince tapes with time stamps, the difference in clothing, the 'verification' of the 6:40 call from 'Nancy', the Hiller questioning, the Green Machine juice when we all expected OJ, speculation about BC's shoes and the shoes in the SWs, a 4:00 am 'katies up' story, and all the rest. Oh, and that great reaction from Chief Bazemore, bless her.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 09:51 PM
Maybe LE has the clothes from the 4:20 AM visit, if there was one. Do you have specific knowledge that there was no 4:20 AM HT visit by Brad? :waitasec:

No...but there was never anything specified in any search warrant other than the 2 in the 6 am hour.

CyberPro
10-31-2008, 09:54 PM
It seems to me that whether or not there was a 4:20 trip, Mom's alert and the speculation about it on this board has given us some valuable i'nformation. We got the receipts, the survellaince tapes with time stamps, the difference in clothing, the 'verification' of the 6:40 call from 'Nancy', the Hiller questioning, the Green Machine juice when we all expected OJ, speculation about BC's shoes and the shoes in the SWs, a 4:00 am 'katies up' story, and all the rest. Oh, and that great reaction from Chief Bazemore, bless her.

Star,

Good points! I am not yet ready to give up on the 4:20 Visit. It is possible there was confusion on the time, but just because K&B have not mentioned it does not constitute proof that it did not happen in my eyes. Since BC had not mentioned it, it would be completely foolish for K&B to bring it up! Hard enough to buy that he was willing to make 2 trips given the situation in the household, let alone 3, and one of them at 4ish in the morning!

You do have an excellent point about all of the info that has been flushed out because of the 4:20 visit being discussed.

CyberPro

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 09:55 PM
It seems to me that whether or not there was a 4:20 trip, Mom's alert and the speculation about it on this board has given us some valuable i'nformation. We got the receipts, the survellaince tapes with time stamps, the difference in clothing, the 'verification' of the 6:40 call from 'Nancy', the Hiller questioning, the Green Machine juice when we all expected OJ, speculation about BC's shoes and the shoes in the SWs, a 4:00 am 'katies up' story, and all the rest. Oh, and that great reaction from Chief Bazemore, bless her.

No doubt. It's just that for me, I would move off the fence to 100% guilty if evidence of a 4:20 trip surfaces. The search warrant seems to strongly suggest that there was not a 4:20 trip. I've doubted the 4:20 trip since K&B posted the videos, and this seems to be the first official thing that comes close to addressing it by not addressing it.

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 09:56 PM
Star,

Good points! I am not yet ready to give up on the 4:20 Visit. It is possible there was confusion on the time, but just because K&B have not mentioned it does not constitute proof that it did not happen in my eyes. Since BC had not mentioned it, it would be completely foolish for K&B to bring it up! Hard enough to buy that he was willing to make 2 trips given the situation in the household, let alone 3, and one of them at 4ish in the morning!

You do have an excellent point about all of the info that has been flushed out because of the 4:20 visit being discussed.

CyberPro

No, you are wrong. They did mention it. In fact, they specifically denied it occurred. That's a far cry from not mentioning it.

CyberPro
10-31-2008, 09:59 PM
No, you are wrong. They did mention it. In fact, they specifically denied it occurred. That's a far cry from not mentioning it.

NCSU,

You are correct, I remember that now. I have only visited that site when it first came up, I do not consider the source to be overly convincing :rolleyes:

Again, it is possible there was confusion over the time, but it could be true, we don't know yet.

CyberPro

ncsu95
10-31-2008, 10:04 PM
NCSU,

You are correct, I remember that now. I have only visited that site when it first came up, I do not consider the source to be overly convincing :rolleyes:

Again, it is possible there was confusion over the time, but it could be true, we don't know yet.

CyberPro

Again, I doubt K&B would post "evidence" that is easily proven to be false since the store is video taped. That, along with this search warrant makes it very very doubtful (IMO) that there was a 3rd trip to HT. I also believe that he would have been asked about that during the custody hearing, but was only asked about the 2. The first search warrant for his house mentions him talking about 2 trips. This search warrant mentions 2 trips. We've seen video of 2 trips, and no mention of a 3rd trip during the deposition. I really can't see how much more could say it didn't happen without the police saying it didn't happen (which they won't do). I guess we'll see at trial.

Maja
10-31-2008, 10:12 PM
It would seem to leave the home prior to the initial "caught on tape" trip to HT would really be suspicious to neighbors. At night, every sound seems magnified. So for him to crank the car engine at that time and pull out, even without lights on, could've been memorable to the neighbors.

I believe he had her in the trunk while he spent from approximately 1-1:30 - the first trip to HT, after the second trip until he left to "search" for no reason.

per_curiam
10-31-2008, 10:52 PM
It would seem to leave the home prior to the initial "caught on tape" trip to HT would really be suspicious to neighbors. At night, every sound seems magnified. So for him to crank the car engine at that ti[/B[B]]me and pull out, even without lights on, could've been memorable to the neighbors.

I believe he had her in the trunk while he spent from approximately 1-1:30 - the first trip to HT, after the second trip until he left to "search" for no reason.

Maja, that's true about the possibility of waking the neighbors from car sounds. However, it was summer. Air conditioning units can be noisy. The sound of air inside the house makes noise while the outside unit makes a droning noise too. And yes, that neighborhood's homes are really close together.

What do you mean by the "...1-1:30" trip to HT? Is that a typo?

fran
10-31-2008, 10:59 PM
Well, well, well, I see there's AGAIN controversy as to the existance of a 4:00 hour visit to HT.:waitasec:

Guess we'll have to wait until trial to see IF there is in fact an early morning visit, BEFORE daylight. :confused:

Seems we'll also have to see what the 'hook' will be for each juror when they find Brad guilty.:behindbar

The suspense!:eek:

fran

PS......as we did with one other infamous trial here on Websleuths, we should start a thread for each member to state what their personal hook would be to find Brad guilty as charged. Didn't one of her friends say it was Brad having her necklace that made her think he was GUILTY?:bang:

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 11:08 PM
Maybe LE has the clothes from the 4:20 AM visit, if there was one. Do you have specific knowledge that there was no 4:20 AM HT visit by Brad? :waitasec:


One has to wonder why the July 16th search warrant inventory reflects the collection of a white XL Nike dry fit shirt since a viewing of the video tapes between 6 and 7 am clearly shows Brad had nothing white on during those visits.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 11:13 PM
Again, I doubt K&B would post "evidence" that is easily proven to be false since the store is video taped. That, along with this search warrant makes it very very doubtful (IMO) that there was a 3rd trip to HT. I also believe that he would have been asked about that during the custody hearing, but was only asked about the 2. The first search warrant for his house mentions him talking about 2 trips. This search warrant mentions 2 trips. We've seen video of 2 trips, and no mention of a 3rd trip during the deposition. I really can't see how much more could say it didn't happen without the police saying it didn't happen (which they won't do). I guess we'll see at trial.

But K & B has made false statements - statements that have been proven to be false. For example K & B has said, as well as Brad, that Brad has cooperated and answered every question LE has asked of him. What they failed to mention was that was only true through the 15th of July. They failed to mention that LE had requested Brad go to the police station to make a statement and that had been refused everytime it was asked. Brad even admitted that refusal in his deposition and would not agree to do so in the future. So quite honestly K & B can only be believed so far, but not exclusively.

per_curiam
10-31-2008, 11:14 PM
In one of the depositions, Brad said he was wearing a shirt like the Nike dryfit. Now of course, I never take notes so I can't tell you where!

I believe it was when he talked about doing laundry and going to HT, because he was asked about what he wore.

If I took notes and remembered everything correctly I would fall into the obsessed category. I don't want to be like that. No one is paying me. Why bother?:)

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 11:19 PM
In one of the depositions, Brad said he was wearing a shirt like the Nike dryfit. Now of course, I never take notes so I can't tell you where!

I believe it was when he talked about doing laundry and going to HT, because he was asked about what he wore.

If I took notes and remembered everything correctly I would fall into the obsessed category. I don't want to be like that. No one is paying me. Why bother?:)

Guess it doesn't matter what Brad said really - the video clearly shows him in a black top and jeans, sneakers one trip, sandals the next trip. The first warrant inventory from the house clearly says a white shirt. It does help to know the facts that are available.

SleuthSayer
10-31-2008, 11:22 PM
I'm not usually one for passing on rumors as I find little value in them. However, since there is so much interest in a the existence / nonexistence of a 4ish AM trip, I will say this...

In the time while Nancy was still "missing" (before the body was found), there were rumors within the neighborhood concerning what Brad had originally told police. One of the rumors was that he had told them that he went to the store twice -- once to get detergent at 4am and once again some time later to get "something" else -- the rumor at that time was not specific as to what the second trip was for.

My speculation is that this information just evolved as the rumors were spreading. I.e., my guess is that as it spread people ultimately confused the time that he said that they awoke (around 4am) with first the time that he said that he went to the store. It seems exceptionally unlikely that Brad hiimself told police that he went to the store at 4am only to have his attorneys so emphatically say that his first trip was at around 6am.

So, perhaps that original evolving rumor is what eventually resulted in this lingering suspicion of a 4am trip to the store.

per_curiam
10-31-2008, 11:23 PM
Guess it doesn't matter what Brad said really - the video clearly shows him in a black top and jeans, sneakers one trip, sandals the next trip. The first warrant inventory from the house clearly says a white shirt. It does help to know the facts that are available.

RC, I have so many of the "available facts" swimming in my head. I don't take notes, don't want to, but keep up when I can. I remember the Nike Dryfit shirt being discussed between Alice and Brad. I hope that I'm not dreaming it.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 11:31 PM
RC, I have so many of the "available facts" swimming in my head. I don't take notes, don't want to, but keep up when I can. I remember the Nike Dryfit shirt being discussed between Alice and Brad. I hope that I'm not dreaming it.

There is much to remember. Have you noted Skittles sticky above about the video depositions ? A quick review of those indicates perhaps what you are thinking of can be found on Video 7 as the HT trips are discussed in that segment. Perhaps that is where you heard it, I also recall him saying what he wore and it did pretty well match up with the videos from the store, except for the change of shoes between trip 1 and trip 2.

raisincharlie
10-31-2008, 11:54 PM
I'm not usually one for passing on rumors as I find little value in them. However, since there is so much interest in a the existence / nonexistence of a 4ish AM trip, I will say this...

In the time while Nancy was still "missing" (before the body was found), there were rumors within the neighborhood concerning what Brad had originally told police. One of the rumors was that he had told them that he went to the store twice -- once to get detergent at 4am and once again some time later to get "something" else -- the rumor at that time was not specific as to what the second trip was for.

My speculation is that this information just evolved as the rumors were spreading. I.e., my guess is that as it spread people ultimately confused the time that he said that they awoke (around 4am) with first the time that he said that he went to the store. It seems exceptionally unlikely that Brad hiimself told police that he went to the store at 4am only to have his attorneys so emphatically say that his first trip was at around 6am.

So, perhaps that original evolving rumor is what eventually resulted in this lingering suspicion of a 4am trip to the store.

I think that is very possible - time confusion. Especially having seen in the warrants that Brad admitted to being up at 4am. I'm not convinced there was a trip to HT at 420 or so. It just seems incredibly stupid for Brad to tell LE he went to the store twice between 6 and 7 if he had indeed been to the same store at 420. This is one of those things we will just have to wait to find out about. Its possible but how likely is it ? Dunno. It is becoming obvious Brad is not beyond saying some incredible things.

Skittles
11-01-2008, 12:20 AM
In one of the depositions, Brad said he was wearing a shirt like the Nike dryfit. Now of course, I never take notes so I can't tell you where!

I believe it was when he talked about doing laundry and going to HT, because he was asked about what he wore.

If I took notes and remembered everything correctly I would fall into the obsessed category. I don't want to be like that. No one is paying me. Why bother?:)

Video 8. Starting at 24:15

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 12:24 AM
Video 8. Starting at 24:15


You spent way too much time making those notes Skittles ! :)

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 12:25 AM
I'm not usually one for passing on rumors as I find little value in them. However, since there is so much interest in a the existence / nonexistence of a 4ish AM trip, I will say this...

In the time while Nancy was still "missing" (before the body was found), there were rumors within the neighborhood concerning what Brad had originally told police. One of the rumors was that he had told them that he went to the store twice -- once to get detergent at 4am and once again some time later to get "something" else -- the rumor at that time was not specific as to what the second trip was for.

My speculation is that this information just evolved as the rumors were spreading. I.e., my guess is that as it spread people ultimately confused the time that he said that they awoke (around 4am) with first the time that he said that he went to the store. It seems exceptionally unlikely that Brad hiimself told police that he went to the store at 4am only to have his attorneys so emphatically say that his first trip was at around 6am.

So, perhaps that original evolving rumor is what eventually resulted in this lingering suspicion of a 4am trip to the store.

MT3K specifically said her source saw the video tape with a 4:20 timestamp.

Skittles
11-01-2008, 12:26 AM
You spent way too much time making those notes Skittles ! :)

I just know the right keyword to search for!

Skittles
11-01-2008, 12:27 AM
MT3K specifically said her source saw the video tape with a 4:20 timestamp.

Later she said 4:19 and that she rounded to 4:20.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 12:28 AM
Later she said 4:19 and that she rounded to 4:20.

I know...I'm just saying she wasn't saying it was a rumor...she was saying it that the person who told her saw it with their own eyes.

Skittles
11-01-2008, 12:31 AM
I know...I'm just saying she wasn't saying it was a rumor...she was saying it that the person who told her saw it with their own eyes.

Right.

OK, way past my bedtime. G'night, all.

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 10:05 AM
No, you are wrong. They did mention it. In fact, they specifically denied it occurred. That's a far cry from not mentioning it.Could you please provide me a link to where they specifically denied this occurred? I believe Mom and have never had any reason to doubt that what she said was accurate. Of course, the defense team is going to try any number of ways to discredit the sighting of BC at that store. It was mentioned in the warrant and I find it to be still a large part of the indictment.

The diamond necklace also appears to be problematic for the defense now. Brad will find it difficult trying to combat photos which show her wearing it on the lake in the days preceeding her death and in other photos plus the testimony of friends and family who will swear she wore it all the time yet...the necklace ends up in his possession after she is murdered. One thing we have learned about his personality is that he "owns" everything. To a person like Brad, he would feel it was his to keep even if it was on the neck of his dead wife.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 10:23 AM
Could you please provide me a link to where they specifically denied this occurred? I believe Mom and have never had any reason to doubt that what she said was accurate. Of course, the defense team is going to try any number of ways to discredit the sighting of BC at that store. It was mentioned in the warrant and I find it to be still a large part of the indictment.

The diamond necklace also appears to be problematic for the defense now. Brad will find it difficult trying to combat photos which show her wearing it on the lake in the days preceeding her death and in other photos plus the testimony of friends and family who will swear she wore it all the time yet...the necklace ends up in his possession after she is murdered. One thing we have learned about his personality is that he "owns" everything. To a person like Brad, he would feel it was his to keep even if it was on the neck of his dead wife.



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."


As for #2, all the defense team has to do is produce 1 photo from this year where she isn't wearing it. Then it makes it a non-issue. I doubt that she never takes it off, but we'll see.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 10:24 AM
And I'm not saying MT3K lied...I'm saying the information she was given was wrong.

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 10:58 AM
LOL Those photos would be a lot more convincing to me if they showed Brad in them. What am I missing?!

And we are to believe the defense attorneys would never doctor such evidence before a trial (not to be used during a trial tho). Remember...until the trial...they can lie, deceive, and pretty much do whatever they want to create reasonable doubt in the public eye. If you don't believe it...try reading up on the Caylee Anthony or Stacy Peterson cases. I am surprised they don't have Nancy going on a trip to the same store at 6:00am to follow Brad or some kind of ploy. (If they had not found Nancy...their story would be she ran away with a lover and provide photos of her living it up in Thailand.) Can't trust the defense team...EVER. They are only in it to win it at the cost of everything and everyone else.

Mom had no reason to doubt the veracity of what was told to her. The people in the store had no motive or anything to be gained by misstating anything at the time. The media picked up on it here and ran with it. Again, not Mom's fault as she was only reporting information as she learned it.

Star12
11-01-2008, 10:59 AM
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."


As for #2, all the defense team has to do is produce 1 photo from this year where she isn't wearing it. Then it makes it a non-issue. I doubt that she never takes it off, but we'll see.

And if it were found in BC's drawer, and not Nancy's?

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 11:02 AM
And if it were found in BC's drawer, and not Nancy's?LOL That would be priceless.

Star12
11-01-2008, 11:04 AM
LOL Those photos would be a lot more convincing to me if they showed Brad in them. What am I missing?!

Those are the surveillance tapes showing BC entering, at the register, leaving the register, and leaving the store for both trips. Click and play.

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 11:05 AM
I clicked and they didn't play before. Let me try it again. Thanks! (Funny they didn't post the stills of him walking in etc tho)

Star12
11-01-2008, 11:15 AM
I clicked and they didn't play before. Let me try it again. Thanks! (Funny they didn't post the stills of him walking in etc tho)

?? work just fine for me.

fran
11-01-2008, 11:21 AM
FWIW, during the Scott Peterson trial, Mark Geragos said, in his opening statement, he had witnesses of Laci that morning, Scott left at 9:30 a.m., there was a mysterious brown, beige van in the neighborhood that morning and there was a break-in across the street from the victim's home, there was LOTS of evidence Scott was innocent.

Guess what? Not ONE of those pieces of evidence was produced at trial. Heck, even MG himself proved, with the opening statement, that Scott, in fact didn't leave the house before 9:50, and most likely 10:10 per the pros's own expert witness (on cell tower reception).

MG was so busy playing to the public and cameras, he forgot what he was there for........to place REASONABLE DOUBT in the juror's minds. The public isn't going to be sitting on that jury. The jurors are going to be questioned and the MOST uninformed (about the case) citizens are going to be who decides the outcome of that case.

The defense lawyers do NOT have to provide 'incriminating evidence,' that's the DA's job. He'll do it too, just watch. From what I understand, this pros does NOT like to loose and picks his cases very carefully. He knows that he needs a # of 'hooks' that will snag a jury to a conviction.

There has been not ONE thing that has proven there was NOT a 4:19 HT store visit by Brad that morning. As a matter of fact, in his own words he WAS up at 4 a.m. so the likelihood of such a visit increases, IMHO.

PER the most recent SW, it is evident that Brad's BIG mouth in affidavits and deposition have given the pros ADDITIONAL evidence against Brad. I said it during the submission of the affidavits and such, LE was lovin' all this legal wrangling back and forth. This is the first case I've ever witnessed where a 'lawyered up' NOT POI kept talking to LE!

IMO, it was Brad's own fault, and that of his attorney, for where he is today. Had Brad not been so intent on revenge over those who spoke up for his murdered wife and expressed their suspicion of him, LE might not have some of the 'evidence' they have against him today. Brad and his attorney opened the door to many avenues most LE looking for a killer even dream about.

This is all, JMHO, of course.
fran

PS......During the Scott Peterson trial, I and many Websleuthers who had watched the case from the beginning, THOUGHT we knew just about everything there was to know about the case. But oh boy! The things we learned at trial,..........UNBELIEVEABLE!! what goes on behind the scenes! ;)

PPS.....JEWELRY.........I'm not sure how much the jewelry is going to play in this case, but in the Peterson case, Scott said Laci was wearing all this jewelry. But.......guess what?????...........it was MOST of it, on the dresser in the bedroom when LE arrived, seized by LE....................The second SW, served a couple months later, LE seized ADDITONAL incriminating evidence, ie Laci's blouse she wore the last night (which the murderer had moved since the first SW).....

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 11:23 AM
Here is what I find interesting on the video:

Look at the label closely on the Tide. See the areas of white below the Tide logo in blue? Above it there is no white area.

Now, look at the website for Tide products and tell me where it shows white on regular Tide bottles? Even the bottles with Febreeze don't match up to the one shown on the video as they have white above the logo.
http://www.tide.com/en_US/products/index.jsp?gclid=CI_yvuyh1JYCFSEhDQodAmDS3w
http://www.kurtzandblum.com/Includes/Templates/Active/images/BCatRegisterBuyingTideandJuice.swf

Perhaps the receipt reflected the purchase incorrectly because of an incoding error or maybe it was changed to serve a purpose for their "defense" here. These are things that we won't know until trial.

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 11:29 AM
Personally, I think that Brad being at that store at all that morning is incriminating no matter what he bought. He could have been trying to establish an alibi to his whereabouts at those times which is working against him now. Because the children were supposedly not with him, he can argue they were with Nancy. However, can he prove they were not in the car? Is there video in the parking lot to prove it? How do we know that the children were not with him when he allegedly dumped her? We don't and since he has no alibi...still doesn't look good for him, imo.

fran
11-01-2008, 11:47 AM
From what I've read, Brad claimed in his affidavits that he helped clean, etc around the house and helped take care of the children all the time.

Now, I don't know how he's going to get that submitted into evidence at trial; but, IF he does, IMO, it's one of the 'pieces of evidence' LE has against him, that he cleaned for HOURS that last morning while NC was allegedly out running. It will be NC's own words, on tape, that will convince a jury that he was lying,.........not to mention NC's friends who will show it was completely out of charactor for him to clean around the house.

BC even stated himself, in the affidavits, that he and Nancy hadn't been together since their youngest child. Yet.............when LE arrived that first morning, BC had been cleaning in the very room Nancy slept in.:eek: Oh, sure, like I believe that was normal.:rolleyes:

I agree with SS,........Brad being at the store that morning is very incriminating as well. It's not going to be ONE thing that's going to convict Brad but a large picture where all the pieces fit into place. IMO, LE most likely has already completed the picture, now they're still working on getting the 'glue' that will point to no one else could have committed this crime of the murder of Nancy Cooper. :mad:

JMHO
fran

momto3kids
11-01-2008, 11:52 AM
Perhaps the receipt reflected the purchase incorrectly because of an incoding error or maybe it was changed to serve a purpose for their "defense" here. These are things that we won't know until trial.

SS...one night I made a purchase and went back to HT to have a copy of my receipt printed to prove the receipt was NOT correct with the setup on it. I even posted it. I then got accused of calling the attorneys liars. If they provided BC receipt, I went to the same store, had it printed different...somethings NOT right.

Also, I posted before they produced the receipts on their site, "BC went back to HT to get his VIC transactions."

Sound a tad fishy to you???:waitasec:

The time has come for me to ask, "What did BC do from 4-6am?"
Many appear convinced he didn't go to HT, he was up at 4am, what the HECK did he do?

MoonFlwr
11-01-2008, 12:13 PM
SS...one night I made a purchase and went back to HT to have a copy of my receipt printed to prove the receipt was NOT correct with the setup on it. I even posted it. I then got accused of calling the attorneys liars. If they provided BC receipt, I went to the same store, had it printed different...somethings NOT right.

Also, I posted before they produced the receipts on their site, "BC went back to HT to get his VIC transactions."

Sound a tad fishy to you???:waitasec:

The time has come for me to ask, "What did BC do from 4-6am?"
Many appear convinced he didn't go to HT, he was up at 4am, what the HECK did he do?

Hi

At that point in time when Brad went to get a copy of his VIC transactions (IIRC) it was early on in the case, when speculation about his visits to and purchases from HT was flying around everywhere, as well as in a Press Conference with Chief Bazemore. Many people suggested it was to gather proof to consolidate the facts for Brad and his attorney etc.

If he was up at 4am does that have to mean he went to HT?
(respectfully asked).

fran
11-01-2008, 12:25 PM
I'm not mto3k but...........

IMHO, IF BC was in fact up at 4:00 a.m. that fateful morning, one thing it does prove is that BC had much lonnnngggerrrr to dispose of NC's body AND under cover of darkness!

He's taken great care to TRY to prove he wasn't out that morning BEFORE daylight, but in his own words, he WAS up at 4:00 a.m......................which, IMO, gives him 'opportunity' of a much longer time period. ;)

Actually, in his own words, BC has given us everything, motive = $$, control, divorce, possible custody of children,...... means = HIS car,....... opportunity = 4:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., July 12, 2008

JMHO
fran

MoonFlwr
11-01-2008, 12:27 PM
I'm not mto3k but...........

IMHO, IF BC was in fact up at 4:00 a.m. that fateful morning, one thing it does prove is that BC had much lonnnngggerrrr to dispose of NC's body AND under cover of darkness!

He's taken great care to TRY to prove he wasn't out that morning BEFORE daylight, but in his own words, he WAS up at 4:00 a.m......................which, IMO, gives him 'opportunity' of a much longer time period. ;)

Actually, in his own words, BC has given us everything, motive = $$, control, divorce, possible custody of children,...... means = HIS car,....... opportunity = 4:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., July 12, 2008

JMHO
fran

My question was....because he was up at 4 am does that mean he had to have gone to HT at that time? Because it sounded that way from mom's post.

Heck it is 3 30 am here and I am up. I woke up and am having a snack.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 01:11 PM
LOL Those photos would be a lot more convincing to me if they showed Brad in them. What am I missing?!

And we are to believe the defense attorneys would never doctor such evidence before a trial (not to be used during a trial tho). Remember...until the trial...they can lie, deceive, and pretty much do whatever they want to create reasonable doubt in the public eye. If you don't believe it...try reading up on the Caylee Anthony or Stacy Peterson cases. I am surprised they don't have Nancy going on a trip to the same store at 4:00am to follow Brad or some kind of ploy. (If they had not found Nancy...their story would be she ran away with a lover and provide photos of her living it up in Thailand.) Can't trust the defense team...EVER. They are only in it to win it at the cost of everything and everyone else.

Mom had no reason to doubt the veracity of what was told to her. The people in the store had no motive or anything to be gained by misstating anything at the time. The media picked up on it here and ran with it. Again, not Mom's fault as she was only reporting information as she learned it.


It's hard to doctor video...and it wouldn't make any sense. Also, I doubt K&B is going to do something that could ruin their firm for BC.

Maja
11-01-2008, 01:26 PM
SS...one night I made a purchase and went back to HT to have a copy of my receipt printed to prove the receipt was NOT correct with the setup on it. I even posted it. I then got accused of calling the attorneys liars. If they provided BC receipt, I went to the same store, had it printed different...somethings NOT right.

Also, I posted before they produced the receipts on their site, "BC went back to HT to get his VIC transactions."

Sound a tad fishy to you???:waitasec:

The time has come for me to ask, "What did BC do from 4-6am?"
Many appear convinced he didn't go to HT, he was up at 4am, what the HECK did he do?


Cleaned the garage and backed his car in there...maybe?

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 01:28 PM
There has been not ONE thing that has proven there was NOT a 4:19 HT store visit by Brad that morning. As a matter of fact, in his own words he WAS up at 4 a.m. so the likelihood of such a visit increases, IMHO.



There has been not ONE thing that has proven there was a 4:19 HT store bisit by Brad that morning, other than someone not connected to the case posting it on a message forum. Given the new search warrant and what has been made public, I think the likelihood of such a visit is remote, IMHO.

Maja
11-01-2008, 01:30 PM
Maja, that's true about the possibility of waking the neighbors from car sounds. However, it was summer. Air conditioning units can be noisy. The sound of air inside the house makes noise while the outside unit makes a droning noise too. And yes, that neighborhood's homes are really close together.

What do you mean by the "...1-1:30" trip to HT? Is that a typo?

Oh, I meant IMO BC spent from between 1 - 1:30 AM - until the first trip to HT cleaning.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 01:31 PM
SS...one night I made a purchase and went back to HT to have a copy of my receipt printed to prove the receipt was NOT correct with the setup on it. I even posted it. I then got accused of calling the attorneys liars. If they provided BC receipt, I went to the same store, had it printed different...somethings NOT right.

Also, I posted before they produced the receipts on their site, "BC went back to HT to get his VIC transactions."

Sound a tad fishy to you???:waitasec:

The time has come for me to ask, "What did BC do from 4-6am?"
Many appear convinced he didn't go to HT, he was up at 4am, what the HECK did he do?


Does it really matter what type of laundry detergent he bought? We are talking about laundry detergent. I'm sure they had bleach in the house (obviously I have nothing to prove that)...but we are still talking about detergent. The video shows him purchasing detergent at that time. The receipt shows detergent.

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 01:32 PM
It's hard to doctor video...and it wouldn't make any sense. Also, I doubt K&B is going to do something that could ruin their firm for BC.I didn't infer they doctored a video. I did infer they could have doctored the receipt, imo, to give the impression of the times being off and what was purchased.

All they have to do is NOT show the video or purchases from the store at 4:00 am. LOL No reason to doctor anything there.

Maja
11-01-2008, 01:32 PM
One has to wonder why the July 16th search warrant inventory reflects the collection of a white XL Nike dry fit shirt since a viewing of the video tapes between 6 and 7 am clearly shows Brad had nothing white on during those visits.

Perhaps someone at the BBQ on the 11th stated he had on that particular shirt.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 01:34 PM
I didn't infer they doctored a video. I did infer they could have doctored the receipt.

All they have to do is NOT show the video or purchases from the store at 4:00 am. LOL No reason to doctor anything there.

They could have, but it wouldn't make any sense. The video clearly shows him purchasing detergent. The receipt shows detergent.

Maja
11-01-2008, 01:35 PM
I'm not mto3k but...........

IMHO, IF BC was in fact up at 4:00 a.m. that fateful morning, one thing it does prove is that BC had much lonnnngggerrrr to dispose of NC's body AND under cover of darkness!

He's taken great care to TRY to prove he wasn't out that morning BEFORE daylight, but in his own words, he WAS up at 4:00 a.m......................which, IMO, gives him 'opportunity' of a much longer time period. ;)

Actually, in his own words, BC has given us everything, motive = $$, control, divorce, possible custody of children,...... means = HIS car,....... opportunity = 4:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., July 12, 2008

JMHO
fran

IMO the opportunity time clock starts the moment NC returned from the BBQ.

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 01:49 PM
SS...one night I made a purchase and went back to HT to have a copy of my receipt printed to prove the receipt was NOT correct with the setup on it. I even posted it. I then got accused of calling the attorneys liars. If they provided BC receipt, I went to the same store, had it printed different...somethings NOT right.

Also, I posted before they produced the receipts on their site, "BC went back to HT to get his VIC transactions."

Sound a tad fishy to you???:waitasec:

The time has come for me to ask, "What did BC do from 4-6am?"
Many appear convinced he didn't go to HT, he was up at 4am, what the HECK did he do?Accused of calling the lawyers liars?!?! Hahahahaha~ Since when do we think of defense attorneys as honest, upstanding, and never skirting the truth in any circumstance?! I can point out in case after case after case the "misleading or half-statements" told by defense attorneys in an effort to avoid negative publicity directed towards their clients.

Proof is in the purchase, eh?! Very interesting.

I am used to garbage put out by defense teams in order to try to sway public opinion. In this particular case, it is interesting they even took the time to put it up on a website about going to the store at all.

Have they narrowed anything down as to her TOD (Time of Death)? I may have missed this.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 02:11 PM
Accused of calling the lawyers liars?!?! Hahahahaha~ Since when do we think of defense attorneys as honest, upstanding, and never skirting the truth in any circumstance?! I can point out in case after case after case the "misleading or half-statements" told by defense attorneys in an effort to avoid negative publicity directed towards their clients.

Proof is in the purchase, eh?! Very interesting.

I am used to garbage put out by defense teams in order to try to sway public opinion. In this particular case, it is interesting they even took the time to put it up on a website about going to the store at all.

Have they narrowed anything down as to her TOD (Time of Death)? I may have missed this.

You can say the same things about prosecutors. Just look at what happened in Dallas this year.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050408dnmetmisconduct.3c03e8a.html

momto3kids
11-01-2008, 02:30 PM
I didn't infer they doctored a video. I did infer they could have doctored the receipt, imo, to give the impression of the times being off and what was purchased.

All they have to do is NOT show the video or purchases from the store at 4:00 am. LOL No reason to doctor anything there.

SS...I have posted an actual receipt and a copy of my VIC transaction on WS prior to today to show K&B is NOT correct. I followed the steps of BC..shop and then return asking for a copy...
Here is what I did one time, only to say no way, K&B won't lie about this.

Look at the difference of the two.

1) BC's receipt, DSC (1.00-) is put way over to the right side of the receipt, HT always has theirs lined up.
2) An original receipt does NOT have our names on it. I pulled out over 20 receipts and not one has my name until I asked for a copy and had to give my phone number to get it.
3) So this must be a copy, but his name is located in a total different location. Computer systems just decide to change the format?
4) Do you see DSC anywhere on my receipt? Hmm..:waitasec:wonder why his does?

Nuff to prove somethings not right IMO.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/LuvClaysVoice2003/IMG_0184.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/LuvClaysVoice2003/receipt2.gif

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 02:42 PM
SS...I have posted an actual receipt and a copy of my VIC transaction on WS prior to today to show K&B is NOT correct. I followed the steps of BC..shop and then return asking for a copy...
Here is what I did one time, only to say no way, K&B won't lie about this.

Look at the difference of the two.

1) BC's receipt, DSC (1.00-) is put way over to the right side of the receipt, HT always has theirs lined up.
2) An original receipt does NOT have our names on it. I pulled out over 20 receipts and not one has my name until I asked for a copy and had to give my phone number to get it.
3) So this must be a copy, but his name is located in a total different location. Computer systems just decide to change the format?
4) Do you see DSC anywhere on my receipt? Hmm..:waitasec:wonder why his does?

Nuff to prove somethings not right IMO.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/LuvClaysVoice2003/IMG_0184.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/LuvClaysVoice2003/receipt2.gif



I don't get what you are trying to prove. Maybe they emailed him what K&B posted and that is in a different format. Who cares that what you printed out doesn't match what is posted on K&Bs website. I can see in the video that he purchased 3 items from the 2 trips. He purchased milk, detergent, and a can of something. Do you see something different? Again, what are you trying to prove or show with this?

SleuthSayer
11-01-2008, 02:42 PM
MT3K specifically said her source saw the video tape with a 4:20 timestamp.
That's fine. I'm just saying that prior to any purported videotape sightings, in fact prior to the body being found, there were a number of rumors spreading concerning what Brad told police the first day that she was missing. Of those rumors, most ended up matching reasonably well with the info that he put in his affidavit. Some have yet to be either supported or refuted by the info that has been released publicly. But, the one that definitely doesn't match up with what he and his lawyers have said is the rumor that he said that he went to buy detergent at 4am.

My personal opinion is that it seems extremely unlikely that he went to the store around 4am. If for no other reason, because Nancy's family's attorneys did not bring this up in the custody hearing. My understanding is that their investigator interviewed a lot of people and followed a lot of leads. Given that they filed an affidavit from a woman who said that he was a crappy boyfriend 10 years ago, it seems to require suspension of disbelief to think that they wouldn't have filed an affidavit from someone who saw videotaped evidence that proves that he lied in his timeline of that night/morning's events.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 02:44 PM
That's fine. I'm just saying that prior to any purported videotape sightings, in fact prior to the body being found, there were a number of rumors spreading concerning what Brad told police the first day that she was missing. Of those rumors, most ended up matching reasonably well with the info that he put in his affidavit. Some have yet to be either supported or refuted by the info that has been released publicly. But, the one that definitely doesn't match up with what he and his lawyers have said is the rumor that he said that he went to buy detergent at 4am.

My personal opinion is that it seems extremely unlikely that he went to the store around 4am. If for no other reason, because Nancy's family's attorneys did not bring this up in the custody hearing. My understanding is that their investigator interviewed a lot of people and followed a lot of leads. Given that they filed an affidavit from a woman who said that he was a crappy boyfriend 10 years ago, it seems to require suspension of disbelief to think that they wouldn't have filed an affidavit from someone who saw videotaped evidence that proves that he lied in his timeline of that night/morning's events.

Exactly.

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 03:34 PM
Perhaps someone at the BBQ on the 11th stated he had on that particular shirt.

Actually, I refered to that shirt to show it was possible Brad could have gone to HT in clothes other than those he was wearing at 6 am-7am as observed in the video. My real thought is that the white XL dry fit shirt was what Nancy wore to sleep in the night she was murdered.

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 04:47 PM
I remember something about Brad wearing a long sleeve white shirt but of course I can't remember the specifics now and will have to research it...or not...I'm feeling kinda lazy right now. :wink:

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 06:16 PM
Regarding the probable cause section of the latest warrant: I wonder why LE didn't seize those 2 right sneakers at the time of the original SW (as well as look for the matching left of each). They should have at least photographed the shelf with the shoes on them...whereever they saw it. The wording on the SW makes it appear that they noticed these shoes on AUGUST 13...as RC pointed out that could be a typo...but we don't know. I wonder why they waited so long (3+ months after Nancy's disappearance/murder) to get those items.

runr
11-01-2008, 06:20 PM
snip My real thought is that the white XL dry fit shirt was what Nancy wore to sleep in the night she was murdered.

A men's white Nike dry fit XL shirt is enormous. I think Brad was wearing it that night... They stain really easily, too, even with Shout or OxiClean and several washings...maybe a good thing...

fran
11-01-2008, 06:22 PM
There has been not ONE thing that has proven there was a 4:19 HT store bisit by Brad that morning, other than someone not connected to the case posting it on a message forum. Given the new search warrant and what has been made public, I think the likelihood of such a visit is remote, IMHO.

Obviously you have chosen to disregard the information of the 4:19 a.m. visit by the suspect that morning.

For what I know about the case, I choose to consider the earlier visit more than likely.

We'll just have to agree to disagree with regard to the 'unknown 4:00 a.m. HT visit,' as each cannot or...... will not prove to the other, it did or did not in fact occur.

At the end of the day, whether there was an earlier visit or not, really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Brad Cooper is under arrest for the murder of his wife Nancy. THAT is what matters most, at least to me.

I also think LE has sufficient evidence to convict the man, with OR without a 4:19 a.m. visit to HT. After all, what was soooo important that after all these years of having Nancy do everything around the house, on the exact day Nancy goes missing and was later learned to be murdered, possessed her husband to suddenly become all domestic and even frantically wash 5 or 6 tubs of clothes while cleaning the house from top to bottom? He DID in fact, purchase laundry detergent, as he so aptly proved with evidence of such!

JMHO
fran

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 06:25 PM
Obviously you have chosen to disregard the information of the 4:19 a.m. visit by the suspect that morning.

IIRC NCSU has said he's waiting for official confirmation of the visit from LE or whoever (I guess that would be the prosecutor at trial now).


I also think LE has sufficient evidence to convict the man, with OR without a 4:19 a.m. visit to HT.

Yes that is the most important thing of all. If a 4:19am visit occurred it wouldn't prove murder, though it would be hinky as hell and hard to explain, and show Brad lied.

momto3kids
11-01-2008, 06:34 PM
I finally listened to Depo tape #7 since this has not become a high priority on my list of to do's since BC is now :behindbar where he belongs.

Does anyone find it strange for a man who doesn't do laundry knows he had Dreft on the shelf? Wrong purchase perhaps once he read the label?

How about him stating to not giving Katie milk because they have been told to stop. But yet NC gets up was NOT too happy about having no milk in the house to give Katie? So if she was upset by this doesn't anyone find it strange he didn't go sooner to the store than after 6am than wrestle with a child for 2 hours at that time of the morning? Doesn't sound like NC was ending Katie milk drinking. Was Katie really up @4am, when he stated in his affidavit he got ready for the girls to get up after he returned from getting milk?

Det Daniels IMO saw thru all of this also.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 06:42 PM
Obviously you have chosen to disregard the information of the 4:19 a.m. visit by the suspect that morning.

For what I know about the case, I choose to consider the earlier visit more than likely.

We'll just have to agree to disagree with regard to the 'unknown 4:00 a.m. HT visit,' as each cannot or...... will not prove to the other, it did or did not in fact occur.

At the end of the day, whether there was an earlier visit or not, really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Brad Cooper is under arrest for the murder of his wife Nancy. THAT is what matters most, at least to me.

I also think LE has sufficient evidence to convict the man, with OR without a 4:19 a.m. visit to HT. After all, what was soooo important that after all these years of having Nancy do everything around the house, on the exact day Nancy goes missing and was later learned to be murdered, possessed her husband to suddenly become all domestic and even frantically wash 5 or 6 tubs of clothes while cleaning the house from top to bottom? He DID in fact, purchase laundry detergent, as he so aptly proved with evidence of such!

JMHO
fran


My opinion of the cleaning (I've exlained this before) with the assumption that BC didn't do it. So again, I'm explaining this as if BC did not kill NC. If he did not, and he said in his deposition that he still loved his wife and wanted the marriage to work...then it explains the cleaning. He cleaned the week before, but obviously no where near the standards that she has. So he was intent on proving himself that weekend. Again, I'm not trying to change your mind, but I can see this as a valid reason for him cleaning. Besides, why is everyone focused on him cleaning the house from top to bottom. She was strangled, so this wasn't a bloody mess he needed to clean up. Her body might have released urine or feces, but that wouldn't have been much to clean up (although it could explain the need to do laundry). But even if there was a small struggle, he still wouldn't have needed to scrub the house. So for me, him doing so makes more sense that he was trying to prove himself than it was trying to clean up evidence. What evidence could he possible have been cleaning up given the way she died?

fran
11-01-2008, 06:49 PM
My question was....because he was up at 4 am does that mean he had to have gone to HT at that time? Because it sounded that way from mom's post.

Heck it is 3 30 am here and I am up. I woke up and am having a snack.

I don't believe mom meant that at all, that he HAD to have gone to HT at 4 a.m. because he was up then. NO, I think it means there is MORE of a chance that he DID go at 4 a.m., because he has admitted he was UP at that time.

You see, per previous information we've learned, it was NORMAL MO for Brad to get up at, I believe something like 6 a.m.....YET, on the exact day NC goes missing and is murdered, Brad's NORMAL activity has changed. He's up two hours earlier than normal, (unconfirmed) that he went to the store at 4 a.m., AND then again at 6:15 and then 6:30-6:45, AND he suddenly becomes Suzie homemaker and cleans the house and does several tubs of wash. NC's friends said Brad NEVER did housework nor wash, NC's sister Krista said he was uncooperative with NC with getting the house in order to sell, and LE learned immediately it was UNUSUAL for BC to 'clean and wash.'

Nah, Brad being up at 4:00 a.m., at the least proves he had two additional hours (under cover of darkness) to dispose of Nancy's body AND to (stage) clean-up the house and cars.

Remember, LE DID take the carpet or floorboard of the TRUNK of BC's car! Frankly, I think that's MUCH more important than whether BC went to 2 or 3 trips to HT the morning of Nancy's murder. Oh,........AND the FACT that he did indeed, purchase LAUNDRY detergent! ;)

JMHO
fran

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 06:51 PM
What evidence could he possible have been cleaning up given the way she died?

Things could have gotten knocked over, something could spill...he could be afraid her hair, saliva, urine, feces would be detectable. He sure did a LOT of laundry that morning...I think in his depo he said 3 loads of towels alone. Why did he vacuum his car trunk (for a 'gas spill') 2 - 4 weeks after this 'spill?'

If he was expecting Nancy back after a run (so he could go play tennis at 9:30am) why would Nancy have expected him to have cleaned most of the house in the 1 hr she would have been gone running? He cleaned for 4+ hours (perhaps longer). He wasn't concerned, he wasn't aggravated to be missing tennis plans that Nancy herself gave permission to the night before, he wasn't looking for Nancy until it became clear that JA was going to come over...he was cleaning (and cleaning, and laundering).

Nancy would probably have been happy that he was making an effort to help out for the 1 hr or so that her run should have taken until she got home (maybe up to 2 hrs if you want to be generous about it). Afterall, Nancy gave her permission the night before for him to be playing tennis w/MH at 9:30am.

Nancy would have probably come home before going over to JA's house. Certainly JA called early (as early as 8:30am according to testimony at the custody hearing) so he knew she wasn't at JA's. What did Brad do in response to learning his wife hadn't gone to JA's as expected by JA?

He Cleaned.

And Cleaned some more.

And what was Nancy MOST upset about? The fact that he did not give her $300 as normal on that Friday morning. He "forgot." She called him on Friday @ work to tell him she didn't have any money.

On Saturday morning he could have gone to get it, but he didn't...he didn't even 'try.' Didn't do it the night before either.

Sat. morning Brad wasn't getting the money his wife needed and was customary to get the day before. Nope. What was Brad doing? Cleaning. Know why? Because he knew Nancy wasn't ever going to spend another dollar again and therefore there was no need to get money out of the bank for her.

fran
11-01-2008, 07:21 PM
My opinion of the cleaning (I've exlained this before) with the assumption that BC didn't do it. So again, I'm explaining this as if BC did not kill NC. If he did not, and he said in his deposition that he still loved his wife and wanted the marriage to work...then it explains the cleaning. He cleaned the week before, but obviously no where near the standards that she has. So he was intent on proving himself that weekend. Again, I'm not trying to change your mind, but I can see this as a valid reason for him cleaning. Besides, why is everyone focused on him cleaning the house from top to bottom. She was strangled, so this wasn't a bloody mess he needed to clean up. Her body might have released urine or feces, but that wouldn't have been much to clean up (although it could explain the need to do laundry). But even if there was a small struggle, he still wouldn't have needed to scrub the house. So for me, him doing so makes more sense that he was trying to prove himself than it was trying to clean up evidence. What evidence could he possible have been cleaning up given the way she died?

Well, I'll tell ya, after watching a NUMBER of these cases unfold here on Websleuths, there's one reason for a guy, who has the REPUTATION of NEVER cleaning house or DOING WASH, to clean and do wash on the EXACT day his wife disappears and later shows up murdered, it's to clean up any unknown evidence. Oh, sure there's going to be dna from both, they live there,.........BUT there's always the unknown evidence LE looks for. The smatter of dna where it shouldn't be. The broken nail, where it shouldn't be, that fits like a piece of puzzle to the victim. The piece of jewelry (ie earring) one still on the victim. A possible urine soaked comforter, vomit tested back to the victim in the entryway,.............vegetative matter in the trunk of the car matching what the wife ate ealier in the evening,............hair of the victim in the trunk of the car..........

It's either clean the house or car or wherever the crime occurred,...........or burn it down (which has also been known as a standard MO, and definitely recently!)

When it's NOT normal MO for the suspect to clean, it's suspicious that he suddenly starts cleaning.

Of course he's denied all allegations of abuse towards his wife and that he's CLAIMED he was 'Super Dad' YET everyone else who knew the couple while they were a couple completely deny that is true. I didn't really expect Brad to admit he wasn't Mr. Perfect and he was Suzie Homemaker. Of course he THINKS he's a prize catch, although his WIFE knew the truth. The deadly truth.

One common bond with these guys is they all believe they're smarter than everyone else, especially LE, AND that if they lie enough, people will believe them. After all, they've gotten this far in life with hiding their dark secrets. PLUS, the one person they inflicted the most damage to is no longer here to dispute what they say, so naturally everyone will believe them.

In this case, I believe Brad has been taken completely off guard with HOW MANY of Nancy's friends and family know EXACTLY what he was REALLY like and he underestimated the reaction of LE. Just because he just got his MBA earlier this year, doesn't mean he wouldn't murder his wife. Everyone knows that, ESPECIALLY LE.......Murdering husbands cross all scocio/economic lines. As a matter of fact, IMO, the more educated ones think they have a better chance of getting away with murder because they are so smart. The only problem is,..............their degree is NOT in murder. :mad:

I approached this case not thinking anything, one way or the other. I wasn't even there in Cary and it only took me a few days to figure out Brad did it. I'm sure LE had him pegged within an hour. That's about how long it took LE to become suspicious of Scott Peterson. Of course, as in this case, it took a few additional months to collect the 'evidence' the husband was involved. Circumstantial, yes,.............but it still spells m.u.r.d.e.r!

JMHO
fran

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 07:45 PM
I finally listened to Depo tape #7 since this has not become a high priority on my list of to do's since BC is now :behindbar where he belongs.

Does anyone find it strange for a man who doesn't do laundry knows he had Dreft on the shelf? Wrong purchase perhaps once he read the label?

How about him stating to not giving Katie milk because they have been told to stop. But yet NC gets up was NOT too happy about having no milk in the house to give Katie? So if she was upset by this doesn't anyone find it strange he didn't go sooner to the store than after 6am than wrestle with a child for 2 hours at that time of the morning? Doesn't sound like NC was ending Katie milk drinking. Was Katie really up @4am, when he stated in his affidavit he got ready for the girls to get up after he returned from getting milk?

Det Daniels IMO saw thru all of this also.

Actually, I missed that. But the fact that he knows what Dreft is might show that he has done laundry before for the girls.

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 07:51 PM
Actually, I missed that. But the fact that he knows what Dreft is might show that he has done laundry before for the girls.

I think you might have a point there. What is Dreft specifically designed for ?

Star12
11-01-2008, 08:11 PM
I think you might have a point there. What is Dreft specifically designed for ?

Washing infant clothing - no irritants.

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 08:15 PM
Washing infant clothing - no irritants.

Okay - thanks. No infants here recently, and I have been warned that operating a washing machine may well result in a good thrashing. :crazy:

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 08:31 PM
Okay - thanks. No infants here recently, and I have been warned that operating a washing machine may well result in a good thrashing. :crazy:

Although I know what it is, my wife won't let me get anywhere near the washing machine with our daughters clothes. It will be the same with our new daughter (due in a week or so). I guess she isn't fond of how I wash my clothes.

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 08:32 PM
Although I know what it is, my wife won't let me get anywhere near the washing machine with our daughters clothes. It will be the same with our new daughter (due in a week or so). I guess she isn't fond of how I wash my clothes.

I can relate to that ! :)

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 08:54 PM
I was spoiled for years...a BF I lived with used to do all the laundry, including mine too. He wasn't half bad at it either! He like to cook too.

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 09:01 PM
I don't get what you are trying to prove. Maybe they emailed him what K&B posted and that is in a different format. Who cares that what you printed out doesn't match what is posted on K&Bs website. I can see in the video that he purchased 3 items from the 2 trips. He purchased milk, detergent, and a can of something. Do you see something different? Again, what are you trying to prove or show with this?If they are trying to say that was the receipt that Brad was given from the store, it should have been the actual copy and done in the same format as her receipt. With definite differences then it does beg to question if the receipt they are showing on the website is 1) from the same store, 2) is an actual receipt, 3) has it been altered?

I care that what they printed out from the store doesn't match Brad's. What is the reason for this? I do not trust his attorneys, obviously. Nor should we!! They are working off any and every fabrication laid out by Brad to try to weave some sense of logic into it for a jury to buy into. Telling the truth isn't their job.

(Btw~ People shouldn't be rude to others on here. "Who cares" is not what I would start out my sentences with around here.)

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 09:11 PM
If they present those receipts at the trial and they are not what HT printed, there will (I'm sure) be discussion among the attorneys if these are not HT receipts. For their website they may have doctored up the receipts to make it more obvious to the general public ... at a trial they have to present copies as obtained from HT or the evidence won't pass muster and be submitted. I wouldn't get too worked-up over how they are graphically presenting things on their website...since that is not a courtroom and there is no legal implication or case outcome from what they put on a website. The real question is what will the receipts they actually submit as legal evidence look like?

tarheellvr
11-01-2008, 09:36 PM
My opinion of the cleaning (I've exlained this before) with the assumption that BC didn't do it. So again, I'm explaining this as if BC did not kill NC. If he did not, and he said in his deposition that he still loved his wife and wanted the marriage to work...then it explains the cleaning. He cleaned the week before, but obviously no where near the standards that she has. So he was intent on proving himself that weekend. Again, I'm not trying to change your mind, but I can see this as a valid reason for him cleaning. Besides, why is everyone focused on him cleaning the house from top to bottom. She was strangled, so this wasn't a bloody mess he needed to clean up. Her body might have released urine or feces, but that wouldn't have been much to clean up (although it could explain the need to do laundry). But even if there was a small struggle, he still wouldn't have needed to scrub the house. So for me, him doing so makes more sense that he was trying to prove himself than it was trying to clean up evidence. What evidence could he possible have been cleaning up given the way she died?

I've thought a lot about the cleaning too and I'm sure you know my stance on things....guilty as hell. Anyway, even though cause of death was strangulation, how do we know there was not a fight beforehand. Nancy was tall, fit, and IMO would fight him like a mad tigress.

I personally don't think he just came up behind her, strangled her for 4+ minutes and she was dead. I think they argued as soon as she got home....primarily over the way she spoke to him at the party and the money he didn't give her. I think he'd had time to simmer and get even madder before she came home and they really had a HUGE fight. Things escalated, they moved around different rooms of the house....I tend to think downstairs since the girls were asleep upstairs. I can even see Nancy slapping him or BC hitting her. Maybe there was blood...even a small amount would neccesitate cleaning, especially if the blood was shed during movement, he wouldn't know for sure how/where to clean to remove it all so it would be better to clean everything/every inch to insure all blood was gone. Again, I'm not talking about lots of blood, just a small amount of blood and blood mixed with saliva from getting hit in the face, however, even a tiny amount would cause worry and excessive cleaning.

I think this fighting and moving around the downstairs messed up the house...of course it would. Nancy went upstairs to go to bed and this is where I think he finally strangled her. I think he followed her upstairs, by this time extremely mad, and just snapped and strangled her. I think she put up a hell of a struggle, knocking things over, grabbing at him, grabbing at doors, walls, furniture, etc. If she had any blood on her fingers..from herself or scratching him as she was strangled this blood was everywwhere she touched, everywhere. She released her urine/bowels....maybe in more than one place as they moved around.

So yes, I personally think he a a LOT to clean up...not a lot of blood, urine, etc, but a lot of area to clean to effectively remove even this little amount. Being the intelligent person he is, I think he cleaned like a madman to get rid of all evidence of a struggle and any blood, saliva, DNA that was spread all over the house from their fight.

JMO but I can see him cleaning for hours and hours in an attempt to remove any evidence of a struggle and of course the murder.

per_curiam
11-01-2008, 09:43 PM
If I needed to do laundry but there was none of my usual detergent, but there was Dreft, I'd use the Dreft. I'd especially use Dreft before I'd go out to the grocery store that early in the morning. Dreft works. Tide HE comes in various formulas, such as one with bleach. Would that show on the receipt? Oh wait. That Tide w/without bleach thing has gotten so boring. Nevermind on that. But he could have used the Dreft! Why did he mention he had Dreft in the first place? Probably because he knew that LE had seen it and would ask BC why he didn't just use the Dreft.:confused:

BTW, I remember receiving a box of Dreft from the hospital when I had my first baby. They gave out gift bags to new moms.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 09:45 PM
If they are trying to say that was the receipt that Brad was given from the store, it should have been the actual copy and done in the same format as her receipt. With definite differences then it does beg to question if the receipt they are showing on the website is 1) from the same store, 2) is an actual receipt, 3) has it been altered?

I care that what they printed out from the store doesn't match Brad's. What is the reason for this? I do not trust his attorneys, obviously. Nor should we!! They are working off any and every fabrication laid out by Brad to try to weave some sense of logic into it for a jury to buy into. Telling the truth isn't their job.

(Btw~ People shouldn't be rude to others on here. "Who cares" is not what I would start out my sentences with around here.)

I wasn't being rude. I was saying that you could see in the video what he was purchasing, and that matched what was shown on the receipt. I don't know why the receipt is in a different format, but I don't think it matters because you can see what he was buying.

per_curiam
11-01-2008, 09:50 PM
Tarheel, I have several scenarios in my head of BC killing NC. One scenario is that BC and NC are engaged in verbal fighting. Maybe he reminds her that her necklace was paid for by his money. Maybe he tried to jerk it off her neck. Or, he could have made the faint impression from the necklace on her neck during the time he strangled her. That's only one of my scenarios. I really wish the real one would surface.

momto3kids
11-01-2008, 10:10 PM
If I needed to do laundry but there was none of my usual detergent, but there was Dreft, I'd use the Dreft. I'd especially use Dreft before I'd go out to the grocery store that early in the morning. Dreft works. Tide HE comes in various formulas, such as one with bleach. Would that show on the receipt? Oh wait. That Tide w/without bleach thing has gotten so boring. Nevermind on that. But he could have used the Dreft! Why did he mention he had Dreft in the first place? Probably because he knew that LE had seen it and would ask BC why he didn't just use the Dreft.:confused:

BTW, I remember receiving a box of Dreft from the hospital when I had my first baby. They gave out gift bags to new moms.
For a man who can't remember certain facts, like someone's last name he was engaged to, he can remember the Dreft! :waitasec: This is a man who didn't do laundry. KL testified to never ever seeing him do it, NC friends stated it in their affidavits.

If they had a HE washer he couldn't/shouldn't use Dreft. So this brings the next question, why have it there on the shelf? If they don't have a HE washer why not use it when they both supposedly had plans that morning?

The next part of the depo I heard him say he seperated the clothes, so
a) did he begin them and use all the detergent and NOT remember to get it on his 1st round to HT?
b) did NC do the 1st load and fail to call him that they needed it?
c) he states how upset she was upset for not having any, so don't you think she would have been just as upset when she began the 1st load and it was just about empty?
d) how long does a load take? He says the 1st load had finished when he got home from buying milk. So a load had to begin before he left.

Even better, he has on his affidavit #167, "he noticed they were out."
Also in #167 he states he got ready to get the girls up, but wait....Katie was UP!!!:bang:

IMO, a web of LIES BC has spun for himself.

tarheellvr
11-01-2008, 10:17 PM
Yes Mom....he's spun a good web at that. I think his "over-explanations" did him much harm with LE and his not testifiying at the hearing just sealed it for him IMO.

tarheellvr
11-01-2008, 10:21 PM
Tarheel, I have several scenarios in my head of BC killing NC. One scenario is that BC and NC are engaged in verbal fighting. Maybe he reminds her that her necklace was paid for by his money. Maybe he tried to jerk it off her neck. Or, he could have made the faint impression from the necklace on her neck during the time he strangled her. That's only one of my scenarios. I really wish the real one would surface.

We'll know sooner or later. Some have said they think a year+ until trial, but I don't think it will be that long. Also I don't see him copping a plea, which by the way I don't think one will be offered anyway, so we'll learn at trial what LE surmises went on that night/morning.

We'll learn of Judge Sasser's reason for granting temporty custody to the
Rentzs soon and this will tell us lots IMO.

momto3kids
11-01-2008, 10:29 PM
Yes Mom....he's spun a good web at that. I think his "over-explanations" did him much harm with LE and his not testifiying at the hearing just sealed it for him IMO.
Now look at where he is :behindbar It didn't come a day too soon IMO.

He has done plenty of :footinmouth:

One thing he didn't get taught is how much easier it is to remember the truth, than to remember the lie he told.
It is disgusting to see just how many he has told.

AmarilloByAM
11-01-2008, 10:53 PM
I understood him to say they had been advised to shop giving her milk in a bottle. I remember this b/c I thought it was strange Katie was almost 2 and still drinking out of a bottle. My pediatrician advised we stop having my daughter drink out of a bottle at 18 months and change to a sippy cup.

AmarilloByAM
11-01-2008, 11:14 PM
Has it ever been clear if Nancy always did Brad's laundry or as things were really deteriorating at the end were they doing their own laundry. How do things really work when a marriage is headed to divorce (with this outcome an exception)? Do you despise each other so much you don't even want to touch each others dirty laundry not knowing where it has been or do things continue on as normal with both the man and the wife doing their "normal" household chores until the day the divorce is final? I have never been in that sitation is why I ask.

momto3kids
11-01-2008, 11:30 PM
I understood him to say they had been advised to shop giving her milk in a bottle. I remember this b/c I thought it was strange Katie was almost 2 and still drinking out of a bottle. My pediatrician advised we stop having my daughter drink out of a bottle at 18 months and change to a sippy cup.
I went back and listened to it again, on the tape @ 17:45 he says, we've been told by our doctors and friends to try to get her off of milk, our pediatrician had told us she is getting near two and we need to get her off the bottle.

What doctors would encourage to get a child off of milk? Reduce it, yes, if they drink too much, but off?:waitasec: Does he even know what the heck he is saying at this point:confused:
Bottle I totally understand, time to go bye-bye at that age.

AmarilloByAM
11-01-2008, 11:32 PM
I pretty much think he is just babbling words out and doesn't know what the heck he is talking about. :)

momto3kids
11-01-2008, 11:35 PM
Has it ever been clear if Nancy always did Brad's laundry or as things were really deteriorating at the end were they doing their own laundry. How do things really work when a marriage is headed to divorce (with this outcome an exception)? Do you despise each other so much you don't even want to touch each others dirty laundry not knowing where it has been or do things continue on as normal with both the man and the wife doing their "normal" household chores until the day the divorce is final? I have never been in that sitation is why I ask.
Every situation is so different and there are so many variables with each marriage. Even though they were in the 'hate' mode, they still appeared to do some things together that week. Such as the BBQ. Don't ask me why if they were in the hate mode why even be seen together. It appears odd to me.

IMO it was for the kids.

momto3kids
11-01-2008, 11:41 PM
I pretty much think he is just babbling words out and doesn't know what the heck he is talking about. :)
Too bad he didn't babble when he should have and called the CPD about a missing wife. Or better yet, called or stopped in the hospital he PASSED while he was out so called looking for NC. It took a bf to do it :clap:

As Det Daniels stated, inconsistencies.

sunflowers
11-02-2008, 12:28 AM
Too bad he didn't babble when he should have and called the CPD about a missing wife. Or better yet, called or stopped in the hospital he PASSED while he was out so called looking for NC. It took a bf to do it :clap:

As Det Daniels stated, inconsistencies.

or, if he killed nancy as many of us think, too bad he didn't babble by calling 911 after nancy died, and babble about "OMG, we were fighting, etc" instead of disposing her like garbage.

sunflowers
11-02-2008, 12:36 AM
Every situation is so different and there are so many variables with each marriage. Even though they were in the 'hate' mode, they still appeared to do some things together that week. Such as the BBQ. Don't ask me why if they were in the hate mode why even be seen together. It appears odd to me.

IMO it was for the kids.

maybe. but in the previous years, it seemed that brad worked, worked out, did his MBA, did Iron Man, and Nancy did the kid stuff. i'm not sure how much they were really together as a "family"

the other wierd thing that i've wondered about is why brad agreed to pay for the girls' private school education through 12th grade. it's unusual. lawyers are THRILLED to pull off getting a paying spouse to agree to private school. they had tons of debt, etc. alice stubbs in an excellent attorney, but it's still very unusual. not relevent here, unless brad was feeling that he was giving her everything plus some, and he was feeling it was all over-the-top, etc etc

just seems like maybe he didn't speak up about some of this stuff, and just went along with it and agreed. private school here in NC that is not religious based is $16-20,000 a year per kid starting in 6th grade, and just a bit less for elementary. this is a ton of $$ for people with financial concerns. again, not necessariy relevant, but strange to me how on earth stubbs negotiated that into their agreement.

good night everybody

momto3kids
11-02-2008, 12:44 AM
or, if he killed nancy as many of us think, too bad he didn't babble by calling 911 after nancy died, and babble about "OMG, we were fighting, etc" instead of disposing her like garbage.
Admit it? That would take a man and not a mouse to make that call. Someone who loved their wife and immediately realized what they had just done, might have called.

But we are talking about BC who is narcissistic and most likely won't admit to it, even if his life depends on it. Ironic isn't it?

I guess it is too easy to throw a human away when they stand in the way and think you are so much smarter than the LE. They proved him wrong this time.

momto3kids
11-02-2008, 12:51 AM
maybe. but in the previous years, it seemed that brad worked, worked out, did his MBA, did Iron Man, and Nancy did the kid stuff. i'm not sure how much they were really together as a "family"

the other wierd thing that i've wondered about is why brad agreed to pay for the girls' private school education through 12th grade. it's unusual. lawyers are THRILLED to pull off getting a paying spouse to agree to private school. they had tons of debt, etc. alice stubbs in an excellent attorney, but it's still very unusual. not relevent here, unless brad was feeling that he was giving her everything plus some, and he was feeling it was all over-the-top, etc etc

just seems like maybe he didn't speak up about some of this stuff, and just went along with it and agreed. private school here in NC that is not religious based is $16-20,000 a year per kid starting in 6th grade, and just a bit less for elementary. this is a ton of $$ for people with financial concerns. again, not necessariy relevant, but strange to me how on earth stubbs negotiated that into their agreement.

good night everybody

IIRC he never signed anything in regards to the seperation agreement, so he never signed or agreed to it. Can we trust what he says anymore?
OTOH, he was raised with high expectations as stated in the custody hearing. Maybe private school was something he classified as a must do with the girl's?

At this point it all is a guess. IMO he is such a liar, cheat and now in my eyes a murderer he won't have a say so.