PDA

View Full Version : Brad's shopping excursions on the morning of 7/12



SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 11:33 AM
Since the police are focusing on these activities, what he was wearing, and there is much forum interest in discussion, it would be good to have a place dedicated to talking about all facets of Brad's shopping trips on the morning of 7/12/08.

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 11:35 AM
How many grocery store trips did Brad take on 7/12?

We know from the HT video that he changed his shoes from dark sneakers to those sandals (and LE was seeking both pairs during execution of the most recent SW).

Did Brad change his shirt?

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 11:37 AM
I think it is interesting that he would change his shoes. I will have to go back and look at those videos again.

Yes, not only did he change his shoes, but it looks very possible he changed sweaters/sweatshirts. One shows a crew type neck while the other one shows a collar sticking out with a slight v neck. Colors are similiar, but the collar is quite visible.

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

Star12
11-01-2008, 11:49 AM
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71233

There is a bunch of discussion on the shopping trips here.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 01:18 PM
I think it is interesting that he would change his shoes. I will have to go back and look at those videos again.

Yes, not only did he change his shoes, but it looks very possible he changed sweaters/sweatshirts. One shows a crew type neck while the other one shows a collar sticking out with a slight v neck. Colors are similiar, but the collar is quite visible.

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

Actually, changing shoes makes his story much more believable. He went to get milk...got home, took off his shoes (like I do every time I walk in the house). NC said we need detergent, so he puts on his flip flops to run back out. Because of the short duration between the videos, it makes sense. You can choose not to see the same thing I do, but it makes sense.

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 01:29 PM
Actually, changing shoes makes his story much more believable. He went to get milk...got home, took off his shoes (like I do every time I walk in the house). NC said we need detergent, so he puts on his flip flops to run back out. Because of the short duration between the videos, it makes sense. You can choose not to see the same thing I do, but it makes sense.Let's see if there is forensic evidence on the tennis shoes first.

No, I don't get it. If he took the time to put on tennis shoes to go out in the first place...changing his shoes makes no sense to me. Why didn't he put on his flip flops to begin with? THAT would make sense being it was so early in the morning.

Not only does he change shoes, but possibly changes shirts. Again, this makes no logical sense to me either. I can see someone taking it off at the house, but a normal person early in the am on a weekend would simply put the same one on to go back to the store.

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 01:59 PM
Shopping Stories

Brad's Story per deposition:

He was up at 4 am with Katie. Nancy got up about 25 minutes later, closer to 430 am. At approximately 6 am he leaves to go get milk. He takes Lochmere west to Kildaire Farm Road, north to HT for this trip. He comes home after purchasing 2% milk. He notices there is no detergent and goes back out to go to HT. This trip, he takes Cary Parkway north to Tryon Road, west to Kildaire Farm Road. While at this light he states Nancy called him to get juice. He turns south on Kildaire Farm Road into HT. He purchases Tide and the green slime juice and returns home. He fixes Katie a bottle and takes her upstairs. Nancy leaves the house, unseen at approximately 7 am. Brad doesn't know what she is wearing.

The Video story:

Brad is seen at 622 am purchasing milk at HT.

Brad is seen at 644 am purchasing detergent and juice at HT.

The local story:

Brad was up and went to HT to buy detergent at 420 am.

The vaildated story to date:

Brad was in HT at 622 and 644 am - he did purchase the items he said he purchased - those items are visible in the HT videos.

Some questions:

1. Would Brad admit to LE that he was at HT at 622 and 644 am IF he was in this same store at 420 am ?

2. Why did the first trip to HT take him in the direction of where Nancy's body was found ?

3. Why did he take a different route for the second trip which took him in the opposite direction of where Nancy's body was found ?

4. Why would Brad be wearing a long sleeve shirt in both trips because it was cool, with tennis shoes the first trip and on the second trip be wearing sandals with no socks ?

5. Why in one affidavit did he claim he noticed there was no detergent and went back to the store, then change that to he noticed it but Nancy asked him to go get detergent ?

6. Why were Nancy and Brad both unaware there was no juice for the girls but they both knew there was no milk and no detergent ?

7. Why did K & B only post the videos showing the two trips to HT between 6 and 7 am but nothing for the 420 am time period ?

8. K & B says Brad said he never went to HT at 420, so why bother showing the 6 to 7 am video since they were so worried about Brad's reputation and the rumors ?

9. Do the videos posted by K & B actually prove Brad was not at HT at 420 am ?

10. Did K & B obtain from HT a copy of video which covered from 4 am to say 5 am to verify the veracity of Brad's statement that he did not go at the 420am time ? For some reason they deflected to the 6 to 7 am time period only while trying to argue a completely different time frame of 4 am.

11. If K & B did not look at video from 4 am to 5am, does this validate K & B's statement about Brad not going at 420 am as being correct ?

12. If they looked at it and saw nothing, why not add the clip to support the claim made on the website?

So it goes, this one is going to have to wait for trial for resolution. But there are sufficient questions to consider it is possible he went, just as there are questions to support it not happening.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 01:59 PM
Let's see if there is forensic evidence on the tennis shoes first.

No, I don't get it. If he took the time to put on tennis shoes to go out in the first place...changing his shoes makes no sense to me. Why didn't he put on his flip flops to begin with? THAT would make sense being it was so early in the morning.

Not only does he change shoes, but possibly changes shirts. Again, this makes no logical sense to me either. I can see someone taking it off at the house, but a normal person early in the am on a weekend would simply put the same one on to go back to the store.

I've done this though...I've come in, taken my shoes off, and put on something different when leaving. I've also taken 2 different routes back to back to go to the same place. Sometimes, I'll take 1 route going and another coming back.

What it shows to me is a casualness of his activity....not the actions of someone that just killed their wife. Changing shoes wouldn't make sense for an alibi. I doubt he knew the store was video taped. I've never really thought about it. It also proves he went home.

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 02:02 PM
Let's see the video in HT for the time frame in question. This would be a better way to judge he wasn't there...correct?

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 02:04 PM
Let's see the video in HT for the time frame in question. This would be a better way to judge he wasn't there...correct?

Seems like you would have to have all of the videos for all entrances for a large time frame. How do you suppose we can get those?

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 02:04 PM
I've done this though...I've come in, taken my shoes off, and put on something different when leaving. I've also taken 2 different routes back to back to go to the same place. Sometimes, I'll take 1 route going and another coming back.

What it shows to me is a casualness of his activity....not the actions of someone that just killed their wife. Changing shoes wouldn't make sense for an alibi. I doubt he knew the store was video taped. I've never really thought about it. It also proves he went home.From the start, I noticed that Brad isn't a "haphazard" type. He is very type A personality. They do not often change a routine or a habit. I think it would be out of character for a person to change his route, his shoes, his shirts etc. This to me would indicate that he had reasons for doing so. (Or he is lying and none of it happened...so he provided too many details.)

It doesn't prove he went home as he could have kept another shirt and his flip flops in the car.

SusieClue
11-01-2008, 03:03 PM
So I just went to Mapquest and was checking out BC's routes to HT and the site where NC was found and noticed at the top of the page - Kurtz and Blum are listed as a sponsored link...wondering if when BC was planning things out if that is how he got the contact.

creepy

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 03:19 PM
Seems like you would have to have all of the videos for all entrances for a large time frame. How do you suppose we can get those?LOL I don't suppose we can. However, it appears that he came in the same door twice so if he is a type A personality (like I believe he is), it would mean we only needed to view that door to see if he came in near to the 4:00 am mark. (I would have to assume LE has those tapes already.)

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 03:20 PM
So I just went to Mapquest and was checking out BC's routes to HT and the site where NC was found and noticed at the top of the page - Kurtz and Blum are listed as a sponsored link...wondering if when BC was planning things out if that is how he got the contact.

creepyOr so many people were viewing the route, they decided it was a great place to advertise. :waitasec:

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 03:27 PM
LOL I don't suppose we can. However, it appears that he came in the same door twice so if he is a type A personality (like I believe he is), it would mean we only needed to view that door to see if he came in near to the 4:00 am mark. (I would have to assume LE has those tapes already.)

The only tape necessary would be the one covering the only open check out between 4 and 5 am. Not a big task.

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 03:33 PM
The only tape necessary would be the one covering the only open check out between 4 and 5 am. Not a big task.Good point! I would love to see it. A girl can dream, can't she?!

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 03:39 PM
Good point! I would love to see it. A girl can dream, can't she?!

There could be a reason K & B didn't bother with it, or couldn't get it. It is a very weak argument to show what the jailed one bought between 6 and 7 am when trying to refute that he wasn't in the store at 420 am which was what K & B was attempting to prove on their website. Smoke and mirrors.

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 03:55 PM
Smoke and mirrors 101. I wonder if that is an actual Law course?! LOL

Btw~ Does anyone know of a man, especially at that time of the morning, who wouldn't be ticked off when asked to go shopping for one item at a time repeatedly?! After what we have heard about their arguments in the past, I find it difficult to believe Brad simply said, "Sure, Honey...let me go back and get that for you immediately since right now is the only time you can do laundry!". Yeah...right.

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 04:00 PM
Smoke and mirrors 101. I wonder if that is an actual Law course?! LOL

Dunno but I would be very interested to know if K & B shared their big lead they got through their website with LE prior to that person giving an affidavit. From her comments it seems K & B brought her in to do a photo identification for that affidavit. :crazy:

SeriouslySearching
11-01-2008, 04:02 PM
I am still playing catch up on this case. What person? Guess I missed it.

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 04:16 PM
I am still playing catch up on this case. What person? Guess I missed it.

She wasn't happy with LE so she went to K & B:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/15/3744323/20081015142722449.pdf

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 04:43 PM
This post above (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2890375&postcount=7), by RC, is the BEST summation of the HT trips I've seen anywhere on this site. kudos, RC!

EnvoyDriver61
11-01-2008, 04:48 PM
I've done this though...I've come in, taken my shoes off, and put on something different when leaving. I've also taken 2 different routes back to back to go to the same place. Sometimes, I'll take 1 route going and another coming back.I've done this too.

However, it is rare that I've done this when for all practical purposes, the stay at home was of short duration. I think in the earlier discussion on this, he was home at most, 5 minutes.

On Saturdays, when I'm just hanging out or doing small chores, I put in the easiest shoes I can find. One wonders why he didn't have sandals on the first trip. Since he had to get detergent the second time, it seems logical to me that he probably washed those tennis shoes from the first trip (realizing he needed more detergent) and then slipped into Saturday morning mode (i.e., the easy to put on sandals).

Edited because I forgot which trip he bought the detergent on.

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 04:54 PM
I take my shoes off upon entering my house and if I had to go back out would slip into sandals or something. However, in JULY on a Sat, I would have had sandals on in the first place unless I was doing something in which I needed my running shoes/sneakers or needed more coverage for my feet. Otherwise, sandals are much easier/faster to slip on for a trip (or 2 or 3 :wink:) to the grocery store.

Perhaps the question is, why was Brad wearing his sneakers/running shoes in the first place at 6am? Was he known to wear sandals at other times except for running/tennis? Was his outfit out of character for HIM?

In July, if you ever saw me in long sleeves it would only happen inside a highly air conditioned restaurant or movie theater...outside, no way. Not in June, July, August or Sept.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 05:04 PM
I take my shoes off upon entering my house and if I had to go back out would slip into sandals or something. However, in JULY on a Sat, I would have had sandals on in the first place unless I was doing something in which I needed my running shoes/sneakers or needed more coverage for my feet. Otherwise, sandals are much easier/faster to slip on for a trip (or 2 or 3 :wink:) to the grocery store.

Perhaps the question is, why was Brad wearing his sneakers/running shoes in the first place at 6am? Was he known to wear sandals at other times except for running/tennis? Was his outfit out of character for HIM?

In July, if you ever saw me in long sleeves it would only happen inside a highly air conditioned restaurant or movie theater...outside, no way. Not in June, July, August or Sept.

I can see that as a valid question.

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 06:12 PM
There could be a reason K & B didn't bother with it, or couldn't get it. It is a very weak argument to show what the jailed one bought between 6 and 7 am when trying to refute that he wasn't in the store at 420 am which was what K & B was attempting to prove on their website. Smoke and mirrors.

I think one thing K&B wanted to prove was that bleach wasn't purchased (as had been previously rumored). Then they wanted to show the 2 visits to HT that Brad made, that aligned with the statements in his affy (I personally think it was stupid for them to put this on their website and make a big deal about it, but whatever.).

As for an earlier visit...if none existed, how would they have gotten ahold of such a thing? Just ask for it? Subpoena for that timeframe? I don't know how one acquires video from a store, if that portion of video does not contain anything on it involving their client. If it does contain an earlier visit, then of course they'd be fools to admit to it.

Good point someone made above as to why Stubbs didn't use any discovery of an earlier visit to HT (I'm assuming T/S would have been able to get their hands on this info from HT if there was a source copy of the material. If no original source was available and LE has the only copy, then they'd be SOL I guess).

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 06:45 PM
^I think that is the key...it wasn't brought up during the deposition. EVERYTHING else was. And the LTF stuff wasn't either (where MT3Ks source claimed he wanted someone to scan her card and said she was in the car). I have to believe if he did that, it would have been questioned in the deposition.

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 06:58 PM
I think one thing K&B wanted to prove was that bleach wasn't purchased (as had been previously rumored). Then they wanted to show the 2 visits to HT that Brad made, that aligned with the statements in his affy (I personally think it was stupid for them to put this on their website and make a big deal about it, but whatever.).

As for an earlier visit...if none existed, how would they have gotten ahold of such a thing? Just ask for it? Subpoena for that timeframe? I don't know how one acquires video from a store, if that portion of video does not contain anything on it involving their client. If it does contain an earlier visit, then of course they'd be fools to admit to it.

Good point someone made above as to why Stubbs didn't use any discovery of an earlier visit to HT (I'm assuming T/S would have been able to get their hands on this info from HT if there was a source copy of the material. If no original source was available and LE has the only copy, then they'd be SOL I guess).

The alternative side is to remember Ms. Stubbs had the lead Detective in the murder case sitting in the courtroom as well. She also made the choice not to use him for testimony. There is a reason and it may well have been to preserve the potential for a fair criminal trial without exposing any existing evidence to the public. It seems to me that the custody issue is a separate entity of its own and I don't believe it is a wise assumption to conclude what evidence may or may not exist with respect to the criminal case based on what was or what was not revealed during the custody hearing.

It also appears very obvious to me that Ms. Stubbs was well prepared to refute certain things but reserved the right to do so based on whether or not BC got on the stand. She did her part to preserve the future fairness of the now defendent's right to a fair trial. TS has defended many a criminal defendent, they know the importance of that issue and it seems they honored it by not bringing in anything that really had anything to do with the criminal aspect of Nancy's murder. They simply did not need to bring it in based on how Ms. Sandlin played out her hand - she certainly didn't raise the subject.

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 07:12 PM
I don't believe it is a wise assumption to conclude what evidence may or may not exist with respect to the criminal case based on what was or what was not revealed during the custody hearing.

I agree with any strategy she employed to protect the criminal investigation. Though there were certainly a lot of areas she did go into during her deposition questioning that had nothing to do with determining Brad's fitness as a father (and had everything to do with the criminal investigation), so she certainly picked a lot of criminal areas to explore that were really not related to determining best custodial situation for the girls.

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 07:15 PM
I agree with any strategy she employed to protect the criminal investigation. Though there were certainly a lot of areas she did go into during her deposition questioning that had nothing to do with determining Brad's fitness as a father (and had everything to do with the criminal investigation), so she certainly picked a lot of criminal areas to explore that were really not related to determining best custodial situation for the girls.

As the judge said - she wasn't going to ignore the elephant in the room. Had Ms. Stubbs not explored these areas she would have been remiss in her responsibility to the plaintiffs.

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 07:20 PM
As the judge said - she wasn't going to ignore the elephant in the room. Had Ms. Stubbs not explored these areas she would have been remiss in her responsibility to the plaintiffs.

Yes she would have been remiss. Ironically the areas she explored did not definitively establish Brad's involvement in the murder since she didn't have any forensic results to work with, nor evidence contained on computer drives or the results of other tests, but she was at least able to show inconsistencies in versions of Brad's stories and get an affy in the record that quoted the lead Det. saying there were inconsistencies and that Brad had not cooperated w/LE after 7/14.

Star12
11-01-2008, 07:21 PM
I take my shoes off upon entering my house and if I had to go back out would slip into sandals or something. However, in JULY on a Sat, I would have had sandals on in the first place unless I was doing something in which I needed my running shoes/sneakers or needed more coverage for my feet. Otherwise, sandals are much easier/faster to slip on for a trip (or 2 or 3 :wink:) to the grocery store.

Perhaps the question is, why was Brad wearing his sneakers/running shoes in the first place at 6am? Was he known to wear sandals at other times except for running/tennis? Was his outfit out of character for HIM?

In July, if you ever saw me in long sleeves it would only happen inside a highly air conditioned restaurant or movie theater...outside, no way. Not in June, July, August or Sept.

I still maintain that after the first trip to HT for the milk, he was going to wash everything he had on, and had dumped it all, shoes and socks included, in the washer before he noticed no detergent. Pulled clothes back out of washer and 'sort of' dressed himself said the heck with socks because they take a while to put on and the sandals were right there and went to get detergent and juice.

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 07:34 PM
Yes she would have been remiss. Ironically the areas she explored did not definitively establish Brad's involvement in the murder since she didn't have any forensic results to work with, nor evidence contained on computer drives or the results of other tests, but she was at least able to show inconsistencies in versions of Brad's stories and get an affy in the record that quoted the lead Det. saying there were inconsistencies and that Brad had not cooperated w/LE after 7/14.

Given the standard of proof for a civil action, I don't think she needed to demonstrate anything definitve. She managed to get Brad to comment on several things that, lets say, just weren't ordinary or believable and quite honestly, we don't know what inconsistencies the Detective would have identified. I think she was probably well prepared if she needed to go there.

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 07:37 PM
Yes, she appears to be one very sharp, capable attorney. Luckily the custody issue was decided just in time for Brad to get his personal tour of the Wake County Detention Center! :smile: I think everyone can now agree that Brad was the only suspect all along even though he was never publicly named as such, and is the only alleged perpetrator of this murder.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 07:41 PM
I still maintain that after the first trip to HT for the milk, he was going to wash everything he had on, and had dumped it all, shoes and socks included, in the washer before he noticed no detergent. Pulled clothes back out of washer and 'sort of' dressed himself said the heck with socks because they take a while to put on and the sandals were right there and went to get detergent and juice.

That's a reasonable explanation.

SusieClue
11-01-2008, 09:56 PM
Maybe it has been discussed, but I am still confused as to why BC was never "named" a POI... flight risk? what was the deal? Are there not rules about officially naming someone once you have some evidence? I don't get it. help!

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 10:03 PM
Maybe it has been discussed, but I am still confused as to why BC was never "named" a POI... flight risk? what was the deal? Are there not rules about officially naming someone once you have some evidence? I don't get it. help!

Apparently, POI is a meaningless press term.

raisincharlie
11-01-2008, 10:10 PM
Maybe it has been discussed, but I am still confused as to why BC was never "named" a POI... flight risk? what was the deal? Are there not rules about officially naming someone once you have some evidence? I don't get it. help!

I can't tell you for certainty why and when such terms are applied in Wake County or by Cary PD. What I can tell you is in my neck of the woods, either of those terms would only be used if a person LE believes may be associated with a crime is a possible flight risk, is in flight, or may possibly be a threat to themselves, another, or society in general. The reason such terms would be used is so the public is alerted. If a person is in flight it is done to seek the publics help in reporting sightings of said person. For the most part such terms are not applied to persons suspected of a criminal act if none of the above exists.

As I said, I do not know what Wake County or Cary PD policy is. So I do not know if I have helped you or not. But to me, this makes sense.

SusieClue
11-01-2008, 10:13 PM
Apparently, POI is a meaningless press term.

So strange. Do you think it was intentional by CPD so as not to tip BC and attorneys off? And yet that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because in the beginning when the good lady of CPD announced that it "wasn't a random crime" I think any rational person understood that they believed Brad was their man. Am I completely off track here?:confused:

SusieClue
11-01-2008, 10:15 PM
I can't tell you for certainty why and when such terms are applied in Wake County or by Cary PD. What I can tell you is in my neck of the woods, either of those terms would only be used if a person LE believes may be associated with a crime is a possible flight risk, is in flight, or may possibly be a threat to themselves, another, or society in general. The reason such terms would be used is so the public is alerted. If a person is in flight it is done to seek the publics help in reporting sightings of said person. For the most part such terms are not applied to persons suspected of a criminal act if none of the above exists.

As I said, I do not know what Wake County or Cary PD policy is. So I do not know if I have helped you or not. But to me, this makes sense.

Sorry I responded simultaneously with RC, apparently. YOUR response makes total sense to me - I get it. I love to LEARN! Thanks!:blowkiss:

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 10:17 PM
Here's a little background on POI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_interest) for SusieClue! :smile:

SusieClue
11-01-2008, 10:42 PM
Here's a little background on POI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_interest) for SusieClue! :smile:

Thank you! But my curiosity remains about whether or not it is incumbent upon LE to "NAME" a POI. It would appear it isn't written in stone - or maybe it depends on your state or city or county? I just would love to know who made the call in this case and why.
Thank you everybody - and sleuthy gal - I am in love with your dog...seriously, we have a relationship.. :-)

SleuthyGal
11-01-2008, 10:46 PM
LOL SusieClue! When she's misbehaving you can have her until she's ready to behave again! Deal?

As for the use of POI or suspect, it's up to each jurisdiction to determine their policies around the use of terms or whether to 'name' someone publicly or not. There are legal/liability issues to consider--jurisdictions have been successfully sued in the past, so to avoid these kinds of issues, a more conservative approach is to not say anything publicly unless they feel they need to for public safety reasons. There are no hard 'n fast rules on this. What you see in one county may be very different than in another.

ncsu95
11-01-2008, 10:52 PM
So strange. Do you think it was intentional by CPD so as not to tip BC and attorneys off? And yet that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because in the beginning when the good lady of CPD announced that it "wasn't a random crime" I think any rational person understood that they believed Brad was their man. Am I completely off track here?:confused:

No, they obviously knew he was the focus.

sunflowers
11-01-2008, 11:15 PM
Let's see if there is forensic evidence on the tennis shoes first.

No, I don't get it. If he took the time to put on tennis shoes to go out in the first place...changing his shoes makes no sense to me. Why didn't he put on his flip flops to begin with? THAT would make sense being it was so early in the morning.

Not only does he change shoes, but possibly changes shirts. Again, this makes no logical sense to me either. I can see someone taking it off at the house, but a normal person early in the am on a weekend would simply put the same one on to go back to the store.

also, remember that it was VERY HOT here in July. If he wore sandals on one trip, I'm surprised that he wasn't wearing sandals on both trips since it he was just making quick trips & those of us who wear sandals for quick trips would tend to do it consistently.....

Skittles
11-01-2008, 11:22 PM
also, remember that it was VERY HOT here in July. If he wore sandals on one trip, I'm surprised that he wasn't wearing sandals on both trips since it he was just making quick trips & those of us who wear sandals for quick trips would tend to do it consistently.....

Yup, the overnight low was only 68 degrees. No need for that jacket, either.

momto3kids
11-01-2008, 11:52 PM
Yup, the overnight low was only 68 degrees. No need for that jacket, either.

Maybe hiding scratches?:confused: Who knows?

Oh wait a minute, K&B said BC had NO scratches and posted this on their website.... He did not have any scratches on his neck.

Dang Det Daniels, you must lie too because K&B posted this and wouldn't risk their reputation. :boohoo:

SeriouslySearching
11-02-2008, 11:22 AM
also, remember that it was VERY HOT here in July. If he wore sandals on one trip, I'm surprised that he wasn't wearing sandals on both trips since it he was just making quick trips & those of us who wear sandals for quick trips would tend to do it consistently.....Yes...is this guy cold all the time or what?! He looked like he was dressed for a nice crisp October morn. What is up with that?!

SeriouslySearching
11-02-2008, 11:27 AM
Apparently, POI is a meaningless press term.While it did originate in the press, it is not meaningless. It does signify a person is part of the focus of an investigation, but not yet singled out as a primary suspect. You can have several POIs in any scenario. It means they want to question them for possible involvement. After they name someone a suspect, their rights kick in and you know the rest of the story...

SeriouslySearching
11-02-2008, 11:29 AM
Originally Posted by Star12
I still maintain that after the first trip to HT for the milk, he was going to wash everything he had on, and had dumped it all, shoes and socks included, in the washer before he noticed no detergent. Pulled clothes back out of washer and 'sort of' dressed himself said the heck with socks because they take a while to put on and the sandals were right there and went to get detergent and juice.Did he have time to do all that between trips?!

SeriouslySearching
11-02-2008, 11:41 AM
This has been bothering me for some time now. Brad stating they were up at 4ish in the morning. I know some people who are early risers, but this one is difficult for me to buy since Nancy was out late the night before at the party.

It reminds me of a woman who was also murdered by her husband. During their marriage, he would not allow her to sleep if he was awake. He is bipolar and requires very little sleep during manic phases so he frequently started his day at 3:00 am or 4:00 am. No matter what time she went to bed, he insisted she get up with him. He dictated everything in the household. The abuse was mental, but very excruciating. She didn't tell anyone for years out of sheer terror of him.

Did Nancy fall into this category? Why wouldn't she want to sleep in after being out so late?

SusieClue
11-02-2008, 11:48 AM
This has been bothering me for some time now. Brad stating they were up at 4ish in the morning. I know some people who are early risers, but this one is difficult for me to buy since Nancy was out late the night before at the party.

It reminds me of a woman who was also murdered by her husband. During their marriage, he would not allow her to sleep if he was awake. He is bipolar and requires very little sleep during manic phases so he frequently started his day at 3:00 am or 4:00 am. No matter what time she went to bed, he insisted she get up with him. He dictated everything in the household. The abuse was mental, but very excruciating. She didn't tell anyone for years out of sheer terror of him.

Did Nancy fall into this category? Why wouldn't she want to sleep in after being out so late?

I agree. Even Brad stated in his deposition that Katie usually slept until 6 or 6:30. She most likely would have still been sleeping, except for the fact that she was dead. I doubt Brad ever slept that night. He was a busy little bee cleaning up his mess.

momto3kids
11-02-2008, 12:24 PM
This has been bothering me for some time now. Brad stating they were up at 4ish in the morning. I know some people who are early risers, but this one is difficult for me to buy since Nancy was out late the night before at the party.


This has been one thing I have wondered. If she got in late and was planning on jogging, then going to JA's to paint early, wouldn't she try to get some sleep for the day she had planned out? :waitasec: IIRC, MH also said he and his wife were to go to NC that evening...I guess she functions on NO sleep.

But again did she ever make it to bed before she was murdered?:confused:

SeriouslySearching
11-02-2008, 12:36 PM
Has it been mentioned about her normal sleep pattern?

fran
11-02-2008, 01:13 PM
This has been bothering me for some time now. Brad stating they were up at 4ish in the morning. I know some people who are early risers, but this one is difficult for me to buy since Nancy was out late the night before at the party.

It reminds me of a woman who was also murdered by her husband. During their marriage, he would not allow her to sleep if he was awake. He is bipolar and requires very little sleep during manic phases so he frequently started his day at 3:00 am or 4:00 am. No matter what time she went to bed, he insisted she get up with him. He dictated everything in the household. The abuse was mental, but very excruciating. She didn't tell anyone for years out of sheer terror of him.

Did Nancy fall into this category? Why wouldn't she want to sleep in after being out so late?

I'm not sure what her normal sleep pattern was, but Brad said she went out every night when he got home from work and would stay out until 2:00 a.m.:liar:

Now I do know, IIRC in one of the affidavits, one of Nancy's friends said Nancy slept behind a locked door, in her clothes, with her car keys in her pocket. According to the 'friend,' Nancy was afraid of Brad.

JMHO
fran

SeriouslySearching
11-02-2008, 01:21 PM
Like I believe anything that Brad says. LOL When was he finding time to carry on with his afterwork life if she was out all the time?! Yeah...right. I didn't see any photos of the girls being tied to his bike or pulling them behind while he was out training or anything.

This would be believable that she was locking herself in another room etc. It wouldn't prevent him from insuring she was awake when he was though. It is just another form of mental control and cruelty.

per_curiam
11-20-2008, 08:11 PM
I'm thinking that something had happened to Nancy around the 4AM time. I figure Brad made sure he mentioned being up at 4AM to cover in case neighbors reported seeing lights on at the Cooper home at that time. Brad made too much of the 4AM bit. Maybe Katie was up or not. He's lied before. Maybe Brad was dealing with a cleanup that he had caused from killing Nancy. Maybe Nancy was alive then. Maybe we will find out soon.

KellyCrash
11-21-2008, 10:13 AM
I thought taking two different routes to get to H.T. was weird. I don't know exactly where in Lochmere they live, but the shortest route to me would be down Lochmere Dr. to Kildaire Farm. & Why is it that he couldn't have gone to another grocery store? Lowe's Foods is at the corner of Cary Parkway & Holly Springs Rd. Maybe he stopped there between his trips to H.T to get bleach.

It's definitely weird to see a Canadian wearing long sleeves, jeans & a hat in the middle of JULY in NC. It's flippin' hot here even in the A.M.. I would think Canadians would have a high tolerance for cooler weather. I know moving from MA even tho it's Nov. & snowing I can still be running around in short sleeves and Crocs with no jacket & not be cold.

I think he was definitely trying to hide something on his arms and neck because long sleeves in July is out of place.

raisincharlie
11-21-2008, 10:21 AM
I thought taking two different routes to get to H.T. was weird. I don't know exactly where in Lochmere they live, but the shortest route to me would be down Lochmere Dr. to Kildaire Farm. & Why is it that he couldn't have gone to another grocery store? Lowe's Foods is at the corner of Cary Parkway & Holly Springs Rd. Maybe he stopped there between his trips to H.T to get bleach.

It's definitely weird to see a Canadian wearing long sleeves, jeans & a hat in the middle of JULY in NC. It's flippin' hot here even in the A.M.. I would think Canadians would have a high tolerance for cooler weather. I know moving from MA even tho it's Nov. & snowing I can still be running around in short sleeves and Crocs with no jacket & not be cold.

I think he was definitely trying to hide something on his arms and neck because long sleeves in July is out of place.

Kelly - I also thought it was very strange that Brad took two different routes and have thought on that for some time. The first trip he took down Lochmere was IMO done to dispose of Nancy's body - cut across Lily Atkins to Holly Springs and onto Fielding. The second trip was done to establish the 640 phone call at a location away from the body location and also in the hopes of someone seeing him and placing him away from the area of where the body was disposed. I think the only reason Brad would mention two routes is the same reason he acknowledged being up at 4 am - in case someone saw him and could identify the car. Tells me he saw people out and about during his trips to the store.

fran
11-21-2008, 10:43 AM
Charlie:

IMHO, seems you've about got it right. ;)

Isn't it amazing how the criminal mind works? They think they're so much smarter than everyone else, yet they work like they're reading a 'standard' plot.:rolleyes:

So transparent!

JMHO
fran

raisincharlie
11-21-2008, 10:46 AM
Charlie:

IMHO, seems you've about got it right. ;)

Isn't it amazing how the criminal mind works? They think they're so much smarter than everyone else, yet they work like they're reading a 'standard' plot.:rolleyes:

So transparent!

JMHO
fran


One thing that has remained constant throughout this case Fran is Brad's attention to his image - clinging to the maintenance of his image is IMO what has done him in from the beginning.

reddress58
11-21-2008, 11:10 AM
Kelly - I also thought it was very strange that Brad took two different routes and have thought on that for some time. The first trip he took down Lochmere was IMO done to dispose of Nancy's body - cut across Lily Atkins to Holly Springs and onto Fielding. The second trip was done to establish the 640 phone call at a location away from the body location and also in the hopes of someone seeing him and placing him away from the area of where the body was disposed. I think the only reason Brad would mention two routes is the same reason he acknowledged being up at 4 am - in case someone saw him and could identify the car. Tells me he saw people out and about during his trips to the store.
FWIW: I live one street from the Cooper house. It is not unusual for me to take either route to get to HT. It usually depends on whether I'm in the mood to sit and wait for the left turn signal at Tryon. It tends to get long as does the left turn wait at Kildaire and Tryon. This is probably the shorter route, but the trip down Lochmere Dr. FEELS shorter when you don't have to wait for both those lights. It's also more scenic. Even though I write this opinion, I do believe RC's theory that the first route was stated in case someone saw him coming from the direction of Fielding Dr.