PDA

View Full Version : K&B Ask for custody order to be sealed


RaleighNC
11-03-2008, 04:49 PM
And - we get a mention!!!!

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3884038/

jmflu
11-03-2008, 04:53 PM
And - we get a mention!!!!

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3884038/

RaleighNC for SuperSleuther of the day!!!

I KNEW they were reading us... ha ha ha...

Star12
11-03-2008, 04:58 PM
irreparable damage....
FOIA........
APPEAL?????????????? how the heck would THAT work????????????

jmflu
11-03-2008, 05:04 PM
I do believe K&B have been participating in the media coverage by posting only the information they wish to share on their website!!!

Thereby, MOTION DENIED!

Next...

SleuthyGal
11-03-2008, 05:27 PM
That makes no sense.

We already know temp custody stays with the Rentz/Lister families. We already know that the judge found reason(s) to keep the kids in Canada. How that affects the criminal case I don't know; unless Sasser is releasing forensic results in HER ruling (which of course she isn't and can't) then { yawn..}. We've already seen the depos, read the affys. Big whoop. Or as SNL's Aunt Linda (http://tviv.org/Saturday_Night_Live/Aunt_Linda) would say, "Whaaaaat?? Oh brother. :rolleyes:"

raisincharlie
11-03-2008, 05:49 PM
That makes no sense.

We already know temp custody stays with the Rentz/Lister families. We already know that the judge found reason(s) to keep the kids in Canada. How that affects the criminal case I don't know; unless Sasser is releasing forensic results in HER ruling (which of course she isn't and can't) then { yawn..}. We've already seen the depos, read the affys. Big whoop. Or as SNL's Aunt Linda (http://tviv.org/Saturday_Night_Live/Aunt_Linda) would say, "Whaaaaat?? Oh brother. :rolleyes:"

I'm surprised they haven't whined about that grumpy looking mugshot actually. He looks pretty unpleasant.

SleuthyGal
11-03-2008, 05:52 PM
I'm surprised they haven't whined about that grumpy looking mugshot actually. He looks pretty unpleasant.

I've seen much worse (Nick Nolte (http://z.about.com/d/crime/1/0/l/7/noltenick.jpg), anyone?). Brad didn't look at the camera; that's the only issue as far as I can tell. Don't they get "do-overs?" Even the driver's license bureau will allow one do-over.

reddress58
11-03-2008, 05:57 PM
I've seen much worse (Nick Nolte (http://z.about.com/d/crime/1/0/l/7/noltenick.jpg), anyone?). Brad didn't look at the camera; that's the only issue as far as I can tell. Don't they get "do-overs?" Even the driver's license bureau will allow one do-over.
When working on locating folks for a class reunion, I went online to the local law enforcement site of my hometown. Not only did I find some classmates, I had a grand ole' time checking out their mugs. Some had changed quite a bit since they were 17 years old....especially in pix taken probably in the early AM while drugged out or intoxicated. Needless to say, NOT the most flattering portraits. Hee Hee.

raisincharlie
11-03-2008, 06:22 PM
I do wonder why K & B keeps harping on Chief Bazemore though. Once Nancy was identified and the status of missing was changed to homicide the Chief had a presser or two but refused to discuss the case, even telling the press there would be no further comments about it.

Prior to that time she was defensive of Brad, refusing to answer if Brad was at HT at 4 am. Good thing she had the good sense to not name a POI or suspect aye ?

ncsu95
11-03-2008, 06:27 PM
Everyone wave hello to K&B

:wave:

SleuthyGal
11-03-2008, 06:27 PM
I wondered that too, RC. Bazemore was as closed-mouthed about this case as anyone could be and still admit there was actually a murder. Contrast her comments with a multitude of other LE jurisdictions across the country. Her officers wouldn't comment on ANYTHING wrt this case. Not one peep. :cop::ziplip: And Bazemore said nothing excep the standard, "we are pleased with our efforts...blah, blah, blah."

I think they're using this as a test case to see what they can get sealed. Because on the face of it, there isn't much in a judge's temp ruling that is going to harm or prejudice their client, IMHO. Most of the public at-large doesn't read legal documents anyway. We do on this board, but even then, not everyone bothers because it can be tedious. He11, the average member of the public doesn't understand half of what they read even in a simple news article.

SleuthyGal
11-03-2008, 06:30 PM
Everyone wave hello to K&B

and wave hello to Sandlin & Davidian too! :wave: They were co-counsels, with Debbie Sandlin taking the lead on the defense.

Lynn Prather: no hard feelings; you still have fabu cheekbones, seriously! If this whole legal thing doesn't pan out consider becoming a cosmetics model--Chanel could probably double the sales of their blushes.

raisincharlie
11-03-2008, 06:35 PM
I wondered that too, RC. Bazemore was as closed-mouthed about this case as anyone could be and still admit there was actually a murder. Contrast her comments with a multitude of other LE jurisdictions across the country. Her officers wouldn't comment on ANYTHING wrt this case. Not one peep. And Bazemore said nothing excep the standard, "we are pleased with our efforts...blah, blah, blah."

I think they're using this as a test case to see what they can get sealed. Because on the face of it, there isn't much in a judge's temp ruling that is going to harm or prejudice their client, IMHO. Most of the public at-large doesn't read legal documents anyway. We do on this board, but even then, not everyone bothers because it can be tedious.

That is what is so silly to me about it - the majority of people in the area where this occured probably don't even care. The news goes in one ear and out the other. Few if any will read the documents in reality, some of the posters here don't even read them. The majority of posters here have 0 possibility of ever being on a jury for this case since we live out of state, even out of country. This is what is silly to me.

I think the real aim is at Nancy's friends, They don't want them to know anything since they may have to testify in the criminal trial. Would like to know why K & B when deposing them felt the need to ask of them what they told LE. Guess we know why actually.

But expecting Detective Daniels to tell them why he said what he said is ummmm crazy and trying to imply he has no foundation to say is is even crazier. :crazy:

maconrich
11-03-2008, 06:51 PM
He11, the average member of the public doesn't understand half of what they read even in a simple news article.

Why does that hit me as odd on the eve of elections :bang: :wave:

SleuthyGal
11-03-2008, 06:56 PM
Why does that hit me as odd on the eve of elections :bang: :wave:

I don't know, especially when one party is focusing on "Joe Sixpack" and "Joe the Plumber." Same constituents available for jury duty in this or any case, on average. Most juries are not made up of Ph.Ds. and Rhodes Scholars, just your average citizen, carefully selected by jury consultants and matching as close as possible to an optimal profile.

raisincharlie
11-03-2008, 06:57 PM
And - we get a mention!!!!

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3884038/


Actually I believe it is Sandlin who filed this motion and not K & B.
The latest update from WRAL says however that Kurtz is filing a motion for bond.


oopps - both Sandlin and Prather signed it, guess they both get the credit.

jmflu
11-03-2008, 06:59 PM
Actually I believe it is Sandlin who filed this motion and not K & B.
The latest update from WRAL says however that Kurtz is filing a motion for bond.

... LOVEly!

I'm sure the neighbors will be pleased!!

SleuthyGal
11-03-2008, 07:00 PM
Actually I believe it is Sandlin who filed this motion and not K & B.
The latest update from WRAL says however that Kurtz is filing a motion for bond.

Both Sandlin & Prather signed, so it's coming from both firms I think.

raisincharlie
11-03-2008, 07:01 PM
... LOVEly!

I'm sure the neighbors will be pleased!!

After finally being able to get out of their houses without fear of a murderer on the loose, yeah, bet they are thrilled at this prospect.

raisincharlie
11-03-2008, 07:04 PM
Both Sandlin & Prather signed, so it's coming from both firms I think.

Yeah, I noticed after flapping lips - have corrected it. :crazy:

RaleighNC
11-03-2008, 07:04 PM
Bond? Murder 1, no local family and a citizen of Canada? He's kidding, right?

SleuthyGal
11-03-2008, 07:05 PM
Bond? Murder 1, no local family and a citizen of Canada? He's kidding, right?

The lawyers have got to at least try. They'd be remiss if they didn't ask.

raisincharlie
11-03-2008, 07:06 PM
Bond? Murder 1, no local family and a citizen of Canada? He's kidding, right?

He's got to try it regardless. BC declaring himself indigent won't help.

SleuthyGal
11-03-2008, 07:09 PM
RC are we sharing a brain tonight or what? :rolling:

Maja
11-03-2008, 07:10 PM
It's been a "baited breath" wait to see what Judge Sasser had to say in this last order. Wonder if the motion will be honored. Seems there is fear over what they more likely than not already suspect is included in the order.

raisincharlie
11-03-2008, 07:12 PM
RC are we sharing a brain tonight or what? :rolling:

You better hope not - obviously mine is not functioning up to speed.:crazy:

SleuthyGal
11-03-2008, 07:15 PM
You better hope not - obviously mine is not functioning up to speed.:crazy:

Well I'm going to need a whole brain tomorrow so if you're not planning on using it for awhile...I'll get it to you later, k?

per_curiam
11-03-2008, 07:19 PM
If Brad makes bond, Scott Heider will take him in. Maybe Heather Metour would reconsider Brad.

"Irreparable damage" to Brad's ability to have a fair trial? Ha ha. Brad has caused irreparable damage to Nancy, his children, the family on either side.

I think K&B are the tackiest lawyers I've ever seen around here. Prancing:genie::genie: you know whats:cat::cat:

maconrich
11-03-2008, 07:22 PM
I don't know, especially when one party is focusing on "Joe Sixpack" and "Joe the Plumber." Same constituents available for jury duty in this or any case, on average. Most juries are not made up of Ph.Ds. and Rhodes Scholars, just your average citizen, carefully selected by jury consultants and matching as close as possible to an optimal profile.

Sorry, guess my idealism was showing. I expect Joe the Plumber etc to be semi articulate and capable of reading a newspaper article geared toward the educational level of a fifth grader. :rolleyes:

Back OT: he sure seems like a major flight risk - surely that will be a factor when it comes to bond, won't it? Or would that just make them set it astronomically high?

per_curiam
11-03-2008, 07:25 PM
K&B, if you're here, please note that it's a "media" world out there. You should know. Look at your website. Talk about websites. <snort>

SleuthyGal
11-03-2008, 07:29 PM
I think there are a lot of people who don't want to take the time to read and learn and would rather be fed pablum. How many times have we observed news articles to be inaccurate just in this case? The problem isn't legal documents getting out--it's actually that the public only hears a tiny soundbite on the news or reads just a headline and then forms their opinion and makes up facts that don't exist. I would worry more about that if I were an attorney.

As for making bond, I imagine the judge will consider several factors including the charges, the risk, etc., etc.

jmflu
11-03-2008, 07:38 PM
Don't let him out!!

He might kill himself and then we will NEVER know!!!

raisincharlie
11-03-2008, 08:00 PM
Don't let him out!!

He might kill himself and then we will NEVER know!!!

He's too much of a coward to kill himself.

RaleighNC
11-03-2008, 09:18 PM
I've said this before to folks I know - that information being made public won't have an impact on the jury pool.

Let me explain why....

I was seated in a wrongful death case a few years back. I was downright flabbergasted of what would be considered a jury of my peers. People trying to get out of jury duty but not smart enough to answer the leading questions of the judge to dismiss them:

Juror A - needed to be excused because he had a bad case of "whelps" and went to the ER. "Are you in pain now, sir?" he was asked. "No, your honor". "Do you have any follow up appointments set up for treatment?" "No, sir" (What the ER visit and birthing puppies ever had to do with one another I never did figure out) ;-)

Juror B - Had to be excused to go to the kindergarten "graduation ceremony" for their grandson. He's a difficult child and it's required that they be there.

Juror C - had a grandmother die recently. Was asked if they could be objective. Yes, no problem. Had they considered filing a malpractice claim? No, not really. Then - the next day rolls around and the light bulb went on and they said it would just be too painful and they might be filing suit against her Dr.

The list went on.

The jury will be the ultimate insult to Brad if it's anything like the folks I saw - because there's no way he'd consider them a jury of his peers. It's scary out there....

SleuthyGal
11-03-2008, 09:32 PM
LOL Raleigh! I've never served on a jury but I've heard stories of what can walk through the door.

The jury will be the ultimate insult to Brad if it's anything like the folks I saw - because there's no way he'd consider them a jury of his peers.

Yes, you nailed it.

Skittles
11-03-2008, 10:08 PM
LOL Raleigh! I've never served on a jury but I've heard stories of what can walk through the door.



Yes, you nailed it.

I've been on three (well, an alternate on one of them). What does that say about me?

ncsu95
11-03-2008, 10:13 PM
LOL Raleigh! I've never served on a jury but I've heard stories of what can walk through the door.



Yes, you nailed it.


I've served on one. I was jury foreman on a theft case when I was in college. The evidence presented by the prosecution didn't make sense with what they were accusing him of. Our first vote was pretty much an even split. We found him not guilty.

Maja
11-03-2008, 10:45 PM
He's too much of a coward to kill himself.

I was concerned all along before the arrest he was going to hang himself.

maconrich
11-04-2008, 04:26 AM
I've been on three (well, an alternate on one of them). What does that say about me?

That you and others like you are exceptions rather than the norm!



The jury will be the ultimate insult to Brad if it's anything like the folks I saw - because there's no way he'd consider them a jury of his peers. It's scary out there....

Very true. Sad and a bit ironic, but true.


I think there are a lot of people who don't want to take the time to read and learn and would rather be fed pablum.

The problem isn't legal documents getting out--it's actually that the public only hears a tiny soundbite on the news or reads just a headline and then forms their opinion and makes up facts that don't exist. I would worry more about that if I were an attorney.

I do agree that as a society we're used to being spoon fed by educators, gvt, media, etc and that many never step beyond this or question / research things to find out the facts and make informed decisions. Hopefully that's due more to busy schedules and lifestyles than anything else.

Regardless it can be an advantage when it comes to trials and finding jurors - even from the local community. People can be marginally aware of something that's going on from hearing blips on tv or skimming the newspaper but haven't followed things closely enough to be prejudiced about the case. Meaning in theory I believe it's possible for BC to get a fair trial locally - and if not right there at least in an adjacent county. At the rate they're going though I'm sure K&B will try for a COV.

And I'm very interested in seeing if the custody orders will be sealed and wonder what (if anything) might be there that's making them request it. I still believe it would have been in his best interests to have reached an agreement and put the hearing off until there was some sort of resolution with the criminal case...

But anyway SG I'm not and wasn't disagreeing with you -- I was just suffering from a lapse in judgement by (more than likely) giving the general population a bit more credit in the smarts department ;)

jumpstreet
11-04-2008, 05:50 AM
I've served on one. I was jury foreman on a theft case when I was in college. The evidence presented by the prosecution didn't make sense with what they were accusing him of. Our first vote was pretty much an even split...

Re-iterating that I hope someone like ncsu95 (or at least with the same thought-process) ends up on the BC jury..... :)

reddress58
11-04-2008, 06:26 AM
Re-iterating that I hope someone like ncsu95 (or at least with the same thought-process) ends up on the BC jury..... :)
Don't discount yourself, Jumpstreet. You too seem fair and objective. You'd make a good juror IMO.

raisincharlie
11-04-2008, 07:54 AM
Re-iterating that I hope someone like ncsu95 (or at least with the same thought-process) ends up on the BC jury..... :)


I hope all jurors enter a jury box with an open mind to both sides of a case, are capable of reasoning, don't fall asleep, leave personal agendas outside the courtroom, and have an ability to understand the judges instructions and follow the legal instructions applicable end up on all juries everywhere. Heaven help us if a certain thought process is ever a requirement.

jumpstreet
11-04-2008, 08:12 AM
Heaven help us if a certain thought process is ever a requirement.

Huh?... You mention several good traits of jurors, but then go on to say, you wouldn't want to impose any restrictions on manner of thinking.

Perhaps it's just semantics, but how about the "thought-process" of being reasonable, open-minded, able to understand & follow legal instructions, and objective enough to put personal agenda outside. Would that "thought-process" and/or line-of-thinking be okay... or totally off-base? :)

Regardless, my point was that ncsu95 is among those that seems to demonstrate these things, so fwiw, I'm hoping at least one (doesn't have to be all... just one) of the juror's in BC's trial is in the same boat.

PS: Thanks reddress! :)

hroark2112
11-04-2008, 08:29 AM
I've heard it said that a jury is the 12 best people they could find out of a group of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

I don't know how the average person is able to take the time off from work to sit on a jury in a capital case. Certainly those that BC would consider his equals will be at work, while his case is heard by retired bus drivers.

No offense intended to those who are able to serve on a jury...one day maybe I'll get the notice in the mail to be on one.

raisincharlie
11-04-2008, 08:46 AM
Huh?... You mention several good traits of jurors, but then go on to say, you wouldn't want to impose any restrictions on manner of thinking.

Perhaps it's just semantics, but how about the "thought-process" of being reasonable, open-minded, able to understand & follow legal instructions, and objective enough to put personal agenda outside. Would that "thought-process" and/or line-of-thinking be okay... or totally off-base? :)

Regardless, my point was that ncsu95 is among those that seems to demonstrate these things, so fwiw, I'm hoping at least one (doesn't have to be all... just one) of the juror's in BC's trial is in the same boat.

PS: Thanks reddress! :)


Personally I find your comment insulting and not just to myself. Your point did not escape me at all.

snowshuze
11-04-2008, 08:58 AM
He's too much of a coward to kill himself.


I concur. :blowkiss:

RaleighNC
11-04-2008, 09:02 AM
Ultimately, the case was postponed because one of the medical witnesses / experts had a heart attack. The case was likely to be a week or so and it was civil, not criminal.

I sat through 2.5 days of jury selection and I was seated fairly early, so I had plenty of time to observe the process and the actions of my potential co-jurors. It was a bi time trial - and they had jury consultants, etc. I wish I could remember the name of the attorney that was plaintiff's counsel. He was outstanding - JUST in the selection process. I had to remind myself that I had not heard any real evidence yet.

After the trial was postponed and we were dismissed, I received a call from a couple of the associate attorneys for the defense - they asked my thoughts on the case. It was a case that they didn't want to lose as it was the death of a child and the defendant was a doctor.

Based on what I saw and that I knew that I had to tell myself that I'd not seen evidence yet and how convincing he was within jury selection (an art form, really) I don't see how there was any way they would win that case in front of a jury - at least not in front of the folks that I witnessed being interviewed for that 2.5 days.

I never saw it go to trial - so I am assuming they settled.

I had enough flexibility in my job that I could work at night / evenings to make up for the day, so I could serve for a week or so. I found it fascinating, the process, the jury pool and the command the plaintiff's attorney had of the entire courtroom.

And while I *think* (and think very strongly) that Brad did this - I have also stated this before - what all we've seen so far isn't enough for beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that many here - even the ones that photoshop Brad in his stripes behind bars - could weigh evidence and make a decision based on the matter of law. I also suspect they'd be better equipped to really be impartial than what I saw of the standard jury pool.

snowshuze
11-04-2008, 09:06 AM
There's a few of us out here who still consider it our civic duty to serve on juries, and don't create reasons to not participate.
To date I have served on three juries, and considered it an honor to do so.

RaleighNC
11-04-2008, 09:10 AM
There's a few of us out here who still consider it our civic duty to serve on juries, and don't create reasons to not participate.
To date I have served on three juries, and considered it an honor to do so.

That's exactly how I felt and using it as an educational experience on the entire civil court process. maybe I'll get to serve on a jury one of these days - but I thoroughly enjoyed watching jury selection.... again - art form...

ncsu95
11-04-2008, 09:17 AM
There's a few of us out here who still consider it our civic duty to serve on juries, and don't create reasons to not participate.
To date I have served on three juries, and considered it an honor to do so.

I agree. The case I was on was ridiculous. They charged a guy with stealing a woman's purse. Here is what was presented...he had the woman's purse, so he had to have stolen it (basically sums it up). The prosecution put the "victim" on the stand. She indicated that the guy called her to say he had picked her purse up by mistake (he was with his girlfriend or wife...I can't remember...but they had the same color purses) and wanted to return it. She had already called the cops at this point (it was a day later that he called). So they arrested him and charged him with stealing. He didn't ask for money or anything, just indicated he wanted to return it because he picked it up by mistake. I don't remember where they were or what they were doing, but that is basically what happened. Also, not that it makes a difference to me, but the defendant was black and the victim was white.

Now that is the basic story presented at trial. And half of the jury thought he was guilty.

snowshuze
11-04-2008, 09:20 AM
My very first voir dire I was very young, and scared out of my wits. I must have shook through the whole thing. I was the first one called, and the first accepted, lol.

raisincharlie
11-04-2008, 09:21 AM
<snipped>

I had enough flexibility in my job that I could work at night / evenings to make up for the day, so I could serve for a week or so. I found it fascinating, the process, the jury pool and the command the plaintiff's attorney had of the entire courtroom.

And while I *think* (and think very strongly) that Brad did this - I have also stated this before - what all we've seen so far isn't enough for beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that many here - even the ones that photoshop Brad in his stripes behind bars - could weigh evidence and make a decision based on the matter of law. I also suspect they'd be better equipped to really be impartial than what I saw of the standard jury pool.

It is a fascinating process. Based on the matter of law, the key and the safe guard.

raisincharlie
11-04-2008, 09:25 AM
My very first voir dire I was very young, and scared out of my wits. I must have shook through the whole thing. I was the first one called, and the first accepted, lol.

Voir dire is scarey but one learns quickly its purpose. Honesty pays.

Hello Ms. Shuze :blowkiss:

Star12
11-04-2008, 09:36 AM
Huh?... You mention several good traits of jurors, but then go on to say, you wouldn't want to impose any restrictions on manner of thinking.

Perhaps it's just semantics, but how about the "thought-process" of being reasonable, open-minded, able to understand & follow legal instructions, and objective enough to put personal agenda outside. Would that "thought-process" and/or line-of-thinking be okay... or totally off-base? :)

Regardless, my point was that ncsu95 is among those that seems to demonstrate these things, so fwiw, I'm hoping at least one (doesn't have to be all... just one) of the juror's in BC's trial is in the same boat.

PS: Thanks reddress! :)

jump, why would you want someone so clearly biased on that jury? The jurors will be asked about bias, about whether they could be comfortable with the DP, if indeed the Rule 24 hearing goes that way. Bias on a jury is wrong no matter which way it goes. Don't you agree with that? Or, if you think bias going either way is a good idea, please explain. Because what you have said in this post just seems to me that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

raisincharlie
11-04-2008, 09:47 AM
Since Sandlin/K & B are basing much of their motion on the Sheppard case, I went in search of old news articles to compare how this case was approached by the press in 1954 - 1956 versus how the press has approached the Cooper case in 2008. The following link reveals some of the press articles written concerning the murder of Marilyn Sheppard. Very interesting indeed:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/sheppard/sheppardnewspaper.html


For comparison purposes since WRAL seems to be high on the list:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3359064/

ncsu95
11-04-2008, 09:50 AM
jump, why would you want someone so clearly biased on that jury? The jurors will be asked about bias, about whether they could be comfortable with the DP, if indeed the Rule 24 hearing goes that way. Bias on a jury is wrong no matter which way it goes. Don't you agree with that? Or, if you think bias going either way is a good idea, please explain. Because what you have said in this post just seems to me that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I'm not biased at all. I would have absolutely no problem convicting BC if there was evidence that showed he did it. I think even the 100% guilty folks (some of them at least) have admitted that there hasn't been enough made public to convict the guy. I simply say there hasn't been enough made public to put me in the "he's guilty" club yet. But I'm definitely not in the "he's innocent" club. I'm in the "on the fence" club until I see the evidence presented at trial.

SleuthyGal
11-04-2008, 09:55 AM
Personally I find your comment insulting and not just to myself. Your point did not escape me at all.

Ditto RC. It was insulting. :mad: Being (secretly) pro-Brad is choosing a side too, and any agenda demonstrates a lack of objectivity. Wishing that for a jury? :rolleyes:

I hope all jurors enter a jury box with an open mind to both sides of a case, are capable of reasoning, don't fall asleep, leave personal agendas outside the courtroom, and have an ability to understand the judges instructions and follow the legal instructions applicable end up on all juries everywhere. Heaven help us if a certain thought process is ever a requirement.

:bow: :clap: :applause: This is exactly what is needed in this and all cases! YES!! The jury is no place for agendas of any kind. I hope Brad gets a fair trial with a vigorous and competent defense; I hope every defendant gets that too.

Star12
11-04-2008, 10:15 AM
I'm not biased at all. I would have absolutely no problem convicting BC if there was evidence that showed he did it. I think even the 100% guilty folks (some of them at least) have admitted that there hasn't been enough made public to convict the guy. I simply say there hasn't been enough made public to put me in the "he's guilty" club yet. But I'm definitely not in the "he's innocent" club. I'm in the "on the fence" club until I see the evidence presented at trial.

NCSU, thanks for clearing that up. However, my point still stands that wishing for bias on the jury could be detrimental to the process.

Star12
11-04-2008, 10:33 AM
Just noticed this:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3884038/

"Alice Stubbs, an attorney representing Nancy Cooper's family – to whom a Wake County District Court judge granted temporary custody of the Coopers' daughters – said she intends to file an objection to the motion."

raisincharlie
11-04-2008, 10:51 AM
Just noticed this:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3884038/

"Alice Stubbs, an attorney representing Nancy Cooper's family to whom a Wake County District Court judge granted temporary custody of the Coopers' daughters said she intends to file an objection to the motion."

I can understand her doing this and why she would object. Just going on what has been reported from the courtroom, what has been put in affidavits, even the affidavit from Detective Daniels, I have not seen any real evidence that has been revealed with respect to the criminal case to be made against Brad. Since we have not seen the judges ruling there is no way to know if that ruling would be prejudicial to the criminal case either. As to the custody issue, it seems the public is already aware that the children will remain in Canada and that seems to be logical since their father has now been indicted. I do not see how that would prejudice Brad as the only other option is to put them in the system. It appears to me that this stink being raised by his own legal team with these claims is more inclined to be pointing fingers at Brad than the custody issue overall.

My neck of the woods - anything, including custody hearings, affidavits and all the stuff we have seen in this case, would not be seen in the general public. I am not opposed to having this stuff sealed to be honest.

jumpstreet
11-04-2008, 12:35 PM
jump, why would you want someone so clearly biased on that jury? The jurors will be asked about bias, about whether they could be comfortable with the DP, if indeed the Rule 24 hearing goes that way. Bias on a jury is wrong no matter which way it goes. Don't you agree with that? Or, if you think bias going either way is a good idea, please explain. Because what you have said in this post just seems to me that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Thanks Star. Just to hopefully clarify: my primary hope would be for anyone charged (especially with murder) to receive a fair trial. It seems me that the more objective a jury, the more likely to achieve this goal. [ I'm cool with the description someone posted: "an open mind to both sides of a case, are capable of reasoning, don't fall asleep, leave personal agendas outside the courtroom, and have an ability to understand the judges instructions and follow the legal instructions..." ]

FWIW, I was also opining that (to me) ncsu95 seems to be among those who exhibit the above characteristics, just based on the posts I've read. [ Wasn't saying there aren't a ton of others also with a similar approach and/or way-of-thinking ] Hopefully at least one such similar person will end up on the jury.

For those who chose to somehow be insulted by (and/or simply didn't understand) my post.... well, I'm speechless on that one... :)

jmflu
11-04-2008, 12:45 PM
I think that it just points towards someone with (what appeared to be) an argument for BC's innocence. Perhaps you were thinking that since it is "innocent until proven guilty" then it's better to go with someone who continues to argue for BC's innocence rather than someone who has followed the trail and come up with the "he's probably guilty" scenario.

ncsu95
11-04-2008, 01:02 PM
I think that it just points towards someone with (what appeared to be) an argument for BC's innocence. Perhaps you were thinking that since it is "innocent until proven guilty" then it's better to go with someone who continues to argue for BC's innocence rather than someone who has followed the trail and come up with the "he's probably guilty" scenario.

I have never once argued that Brad is innocent. If I have, please show me the post.

Anderson
11-04-2008, 01:04 PM
Thanks Star. Just to hopefully clarify: my primary hope would be for anyone charged (especially with murder) to receive a fair trial. It seems me that the more objective a jury, the better to achieve this goal. [ I'm cool with the description someone posted: "an open mind to both sides of a case, are capable of reasoning, don't fall asleep, leave personal agendas outside the courtroom, and have an ability to understand the judges instructions and follow the legal instructions applicable end up on all juries everywhere" ]

FWIW, I was also opining that (to me) ncsu95 seems to be among those who exhibit the above characteristics, just based on the posts I've read. [ Wasn't saying there aren't a ton of others also with a similar approach and/or way-of-thinking ] Hopefully at least one such similar person will end up on the jury.

For those who chose to somehow be insulted by (and/or simply didn't understand) my post.... well, I'm speechless on that one... :)

With all due respect JS, I don't think that anyone on this board would qualify for the jury. I say this not JUST because we all know about the case, although that is one reason. I also think that many posters are biased in some way. Some may be open to the view that BC may be guilty, but no more than other posters that are open to the view that he may be innocent. This may be related to whatever interested us in the case to begin with.

However, I do see some posters that would ultimately base their opinion on the full range of evidence which may emerge and they also take the time to review it. I think that individuals of this mindset (but not acquainted with the case to the same degree as WS posters) may make the best jurors. IMO, the contributors to the board that fit this description currently seem to be leaning toward the guilty verdict, which I find significant. I am sure that they would shift given a reason to do so.

JMO

jmflu
11-04-2008, 01:09 PM
I have never once argued that Brad is innocent. If I have, please show me the post.

Mexico sun must have baked my brain. Must have you confused with someone else.

Sorry! :rolleyes:

ncsu95
11-04-2008, 01:29 PM
Mexico sun must have baked my brain. Must have you confused with someone else.

Sorry! :rolleyes:

I have argued a different point of view on much of the "evidence" we've seen so far....but I've never said or claimed he was innocent. In fact, I've maintained all along that he is probably guilty.

sunflowers
11-04-2008, 02:33 PM
Since Sandlin/K & B are basing much of their motion on the Sheppard case, I went in search of old news articles to compare how this case was approached by the press in 1954 - 1956 versus how the press has approached the Cooper case in 2008. The following link reveals some of the press articles written concerning the murder of Marilyn Sheppard. Very interesting indeed:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/sheppard/sheppardnewspaper.html


For comparison purposes since WRAL seems to be high on the list:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3359064/

wow. i just finished reading through all of this. thanks for the links. very interesting that attorneys are citing this case....

Roy23
11-04-2008, 05:30 PM
With all due respect JS, I don't think that anyone on this board would qualify for the jury. I say this not JUST because we all know about the case, although that is one reason. I also think that many posters are biased in some way. Some may be open to the view that BC may be guilty, but no more than other posters that are open to the view that he may be innocent. This may be related to whatever interested us in the case to begin with.

However, I do see some posters that would ultimately base their opinion on the full range of evidence which may emerge and they also take the time to review it. I think that individuals of this mindset (but not acquainted with the case to the same degree as WS posters) may make the best jurors. IMO, the contributors to the board that fit this description currently seem to be leaning toward the guilty verdict, which I find significant. I am sure that they would shift given a reason to do so.

JMO


I think most of the posters here would do their job and do it well. Only the people who feel that Brad has already been proven a murderer due to inconsistant statements would be bad jurors. For a jury, NCSU would be my choice as perfect juror. He may have expressed doubts but he has an open mind. He takes all evidence and processes it instead of immediately criticizing it. I believe that ultimately when the case is proven, he would vote guilty and the process worked. Kudos to you NCSU. Brad is going to be a guilty man but you gave him every benefit of the doubt and still do. I believe the evidence would change that.

jumpstreet
11-04-2008, 05:57 PM
I think most of the posters here would do their job and do it well. Only the people who feel that Brad has already been proven a murderer due to inconsistent statements would be bad jurors. For a jury, NCSU would be my choice as perfect juror. He may have expressed doubts but he has an open mind. He takes all evidence and processes it instead of immediately criticizing it

Agreed Roy...
Is pretty much the opinion I was "trying" to relay at my original post on the matter. One or two folks here seemed to take it the wrong way - not sure why (shrugs). :)

In any case, we can get back to the regularly scheduled discussion now... [ if anyone here gets called for jury-duty in this case {yes, I know that's not gonna happen... :) } - I'm sure we'll all get a full post-mortem ;) ]

RaleighNC
11-04-2008, 06:37 PM
In any case, we can get back to the regularly scheduled discussion now... [ if anyone here gets called for jury-duty in this case {yes, I know that's not gonna happen... :) } - I'm sure we'll all get a full post-mortem ;) ]

Oh someone might get called - but I can pretty much guaran-damn-tee they won't get seated! :yes::yes::yes:

Anderson
11-04-2008, 06:40 PM
I think most of the posters here would do their job and do it well. Only the people who feel that Brad has already been proven a murderer due to inconsistant statements would be bad jurors. For a jury, NCSU would be my choice as perfect juror. He may have expressed doubts but he has an open mind. He takes all evidence and processes it instead of immediately criticizing it. I believe that ultimately when the case is proven, he would vote guilty and the process worked. Kudos to you NCSU. Brad is going to be a guilty man but you gave him every benefit of the doubt and still do. I believe the evidence would change that.

Okay, since we must give names: I think that, for example, RC or SG (and there are certainly several others) would make perfect jurors. This would be the case, if they were not posters on websleuths. They both begin by looking at the evidence and take the time to review it. They would both certainly respond to new evidence.

Anderson
11-04-2008, 06:46 PM
Oh someone might get called - but I can pretty much guaran-damn-tee they won't get seated! :yes::yes::yes:

:clap:

ncsu95
11-04-2008, 06:54 PM
Okay, since we must give names: I think that, for example, RC or SG (and there are certainly several others) would make perfect jurors. This would be the case, if they were not posters on websleuths. They both begin by looking at the evidence and take the time to review it. They would both certainly respond to new evidence.

I think almost anyone that isn't "he's 100% guilty or 100% innocent" based on what we know would make a decent jury. SG is only 97% guilty. There are several on here that would be absolute horrible jurors because they are already 100% based on the little bit we know...and have completely disregarded things such as the witness that claimed to see her that morning.

Anderson
11-04-2008, 07:02 PM
I think almost anyone that isn't "he's 100% guilty or 100% innocent" based on what we know would make a decent jury. SG is only 97% guilty. There are several on here that would be absolute horrible jurors because they are already 100% based on the little bit we know...and have completely disregarded things such as the witness that claimed to see her that morning.

And there are others that have disregarded research on the problems with eyewitness accounts. I posted a quote from a paper in this area when we originally discussed this. You can always dig deeper, I suppose. We simply don't have all of the information in front of us right now to determine whether or not this is a credible witness. For that reason, it is difficult for us to make that assessment on the board. We can only speculate. I do think that LE did not consider this to be a credible witness for a reason that we just don't know about yet.

raisincharlie
11-04-2008, 07:15 PM
I think almost anyone that isn't "he's 100% guilty or 100% innocent" based on what we know would make a decent jury. SG is only 97% guilty. There are several on here that would be absolute horrible jurors because they are already 100% based on the little bit we know...and have completely disregarded things such as the witness that claimed to see her that morning.

Is that not the equivalent of disregarding all of the affidavits from Nancy's friends ?

I do disregard the witness that claimed to have seen Nancy (just as I disregard the hearsay presented by Nancy's friends as "facts"). She went from "knowing" it was Nancy in an affidavit to "thinking" it was Nancy when put on the stand. She also was not consistent in her claims of when events occured, could not describe what Nancy was wearing with any clarity and so on. Apparently LE also disregarded her claim. Because one disregards this person simply does not equate to believing in 100% guilt, it simply means one thinks the credibility of what the individual thought they saw is lacking. It's similar to Mr. Hiller claiming LE was trying to coerce him in an affidavit and proclaiming it to the the press and then getting on the stand and saying he just was naive about investigations and deciding not to reiterate that statement under oath. His perception was obviously very different depending on where and under what conditions he was stating his "facts".

ncsu95
11-04-2008, 07:31 PM
Is that not the equivalent of disregarding all of the affidavits from Nancy's friends ?

I do disregard the witness that claimed to have seen Nancy (just as I disregard the hearsay presented by Nancy's friends as "facts"). She went from "knowing" it was Nancy in an affidavit to "thinking" it was Nancy when put on the stand. She also was not consistent in her claims of when events occured, could not describe what Nancy was wearing with any clarity and so on. Apparently LE also disregarded her claim. Because one disregards this person simply does not equate to believing in 100% guilt, it simply means one thinks the credibility of what the individual thought they saw is lacking. It's similar to Mr. Hiller claiming LE was trying to coerce him in an affidavit and proclaiming it to the the press and then getting on the stand and saying he just was naive about investigations and deciding not to reiterate that statement under oath. His perception was obviously very different depending on where and under what conditions he was stating his "facts".


Personally, I haven't disregarded anything. I believe all of NCs friends were telling the truth from their perspective. I just believe that most of that information came from NC and can't be rebutted (obviously). Given they were going through a divorce, I wouldn't expect NC to speak highly of BC, and I could see her exaggerating as well.

ncsu95
11-04-2008, 07:32 PM
And there are others that have disregarded research on the problems with eyewitness accounts. I posted a quote from a paper in this area when we originally discussed this. You can always dig deeper, I suppose. We simply don't have all of the information in front of us right now to determine whether or not this is a credible witness. For that reason, it is difficult for us to make that assessment on the board. We can only speculate. I do think that LE did not consider this to be a credible witness for a reason that we just don't know about yet.

Exactly. We don't have enough information to determine if she is credible or not.

raisincharlie
11-04-2008, 07:38 PM
Personally, I haven't disregarded anything. I believe all of NCs friends were telling the truth from their perspective. I just believe that most of that information came from NC and can't be rebutted (obviously). Given they were going through a divorce, I wouldn't expect NC to speak highly of BC, and I could see her exaggerating as well.

From a criminal trial perspective, the hearsay of the friends will not be admissable. It can therefore be disregarded. I don't believe I said you disregarded anything, only stated what I have disregarded and why so lets move past this pith party.

ncsu95
11-04-2008, 07:39 PM
And there are others that have disregarded research on the problems with eyewitness accounts. I posted a quote from a paper in this area when we originally discussed this. You can always dig deeper, I suppose. We simply don't have all of the information in front of us right now to determine whether or not this is a credible witness. For that reason, it is difficult for us to make that assessment on the board. We can only speculate. I do think that LE did not consider this to be a credible witness for a reason that we just don't know about yet.

I also think LE (not necessarily CPD) sometimes disregard things that don't fit into their theory of what happened.

Anderson
11-04-2008, 08:06 PM
From a criminal trial perspective, the hearsay of the friends will not be admissable. It can therefore be disregarded. I don't believe I said you disregarded anything, only stated what I have disregarded and why so lets move past this pith party.

You are quite right. Lets move on.

raisincharlie
11-04-2008, 08:15 PM
You are quite right. Lets move on.

Anderson, where have you been ? Have you had a chance yet to go through the second search warrant on the residence ? Some interesting stuff in there.

Anderson
11-05-2008, 02:16 PM
Anderson, where have you been ? Have you had a chance yet to go through the second search warrant on the residence ? Some interesting stuff in there.

Hi RC!!:)

I have been very busy with work and technical difficulties, but I have tried to read the articles etc. I was obviously stunned when Brad was actually arrested so soon. This makes me believe that the investigators have constructed a pretty strong case. I did look at the new SW, but I had trouble saving the document.

I was really struck by the seizure of Nancy's jewellry. I see that there has been a lot of discussion about the necklace. I remember that in his first affidavit BC stated that Nancy's parents had asked for her jewellry and hats. Brad boy said that he had passed these items on to the family (he included an offhand comment about the family's motives and suggested that they were trying to make Krista look like NC or something along those lines). It appears that investigators collected several pieces of jewellry, so I wonder what Brad actually did give to the family in June (I mean July:crazy:).

BC clearly did not pass on the piece of jewellry that was most interesting to NC's family: the necklace. Her family obviously thought that Nancy would have been wearing it on all occasions. It now seems silly to me that BC didn't get rid of it. I suppose that he thought it was worth too much. Perhaps he had plans for it (Celene?). I remember that we learned before that the necklace was in Brad's desk at one point (at least I think so or am I mistaken?). I wonder why the necklace wasn't taken before. If the necklace was broken, then I imagine investigators would be able to make that determination, wouldn't they? It looks as though investigators believe that it may have been broken. One alternative is that he actually removed it from her neck after strangling her and broke the chain while doing this.:confused: Brad may have been worried about leaving evidence. In that case it would have been cleaned. I imagine that investigators may also have methods to demonstrate that. Very interesting.

The first time that I downloaded the document, I could read the statement by JA Young and other information, but not now. I wasn't quite sure about some of the points, especially the shoes. I do see that there has been some discussion about the shoes. It seems that Brad may have thrown out the wrong pair (two similiar shoes/same foot) and didn't leave a believable match. I am a bit confused about that issue. I gather that they are trying to prove that NC never left the house with shoes on. That would indeed be significant evidence, I would think.

raisincharlie
11-05-2008, 02:59 PM
<snip>

The first time that I downloaded the document, I could read the statement by JA Young and other information, but not now. I wasn't quite sure about some of the points, especially the shoes. I do see that there has been some discussion about the shoes. It seems that Brad may have thrown out the wrong pair (two similiar shoes/same foot) and didn't leave a believable match. I am a bit confused about that issue. I gather that they are trying to prove that NC never left the house with shoes on. That would indeed be significant evidence, I would think.


Hope the technical difficulties calm down for you - no fun !

As to the jewelry, I do indeed recall Brad saying he gave some things to Nancy's family and that he was concerned about Krista attempting to imitate Nancy to the children. No idea really of what, if anything, he did give to them but obviously it wasn't her rings or the necklace in question. From watching Brad's deposition, just to clarify, he does not say the necklace was in "his" desk drawer, only that it was in a desk drawer. Might not matter much but the perception is different depending on where it actually was I think. As to its condition, we'll have to wait to find that out :)

The shoes also intrigue me. My initial thought for LE to collect Nancy's shoes the first go round was to compare sizes to some that may have been found near where she was located or at some other location. The second collection of shoes however has led me to believe there were no shoes found where Nancy was. It would be pointless to worry about two shoes of the same foot missing for a brand that Brad never mentioned (AScics or whatever) since Brad indicated she wore a different brand to run in. The question then becomes in going through all those charge receipts can LE verify that a pair of Saucony's were purchased. If not then the two left shoes become important. It will be interesting if no proof of purchase is found for the Saucony's and the two left shoes never appear. Seems to me there are definitely some shoes missing and LE tends to think some things were disposed to cover up. Might be the pair collected during the first warrant were the Saucony's for that matter. We shall see, never know what luminol might show either. :)

Anderson
11-05-2008, 03:19 PM
Hope the technical difficulties calm down for you - no fun !

As to the jewelry, I do indeed recall Brad saying he gave some things to Nancy's family and that he was concerned about Krista attempting to imitate Nancy to the children. No idea really of what, if anything, he did give to them but obviously it wasn't her rings or the necklace in question. From watching Brad's deposition, just to clarify, he does not say the necklace was in "his" desk drawer, only that it was in a desk drawer. Might not matter much but the perception is different depending on where it actually was I think. As to its condition, we'll have to wait to find that out :)

The shoes also intrigue me. My initial thought for LE to collect Nancy's shoes the first go round was to compare sizes to some that may have been found near where she was located or at some other location. The second collection of shoes however has led me to believe there were no shoes found where Nancy was. It would be pointless to worry about two shoes of the same foot missing for a brand that Brad never mentioned (AScics or whatever) since Brad indicated she wore a different brand to run in. The question then becomes in going through all those charge receipts can LE verify that a pair of Saucony's were purchased. If not then the two left shoes become important. It will be interesting if no proof of purchase is found for the Saucony's and the two left shoes never appear. Seems to me there are definitely some shoes missing and LE tends to think some things were disposed to cover up. Might be the pair collected during the first warrant were the Saucony's for that matter. We shall see, never know what luminol might show either. :)

Thanks for the clarifications! Yes, I can see that we will need to wait to know about the state of the necklace.

I suppose that it is at least possible that investigators found two right shoes that had been thrown out and match the left pair. In any case, it will be interesting to see what tranpires with this possible evidence.

garner_nc
11-05-2008, 03:29 PM
Thanks for the clarifications! Yes, I can see that we will need to wait to know about the state of the necklace.

I suppose that it is at least possible that investigators found two right shoes that had been thrown out and match the left pair. In any case, it will be interesting to see what tranpires with this possible evidence.


The SW says they took 4 pairs of shoes. For all we know they found the missing shoes elsewhere in the house. I do wish they would detail items taken a bit more. Tell us size, brand and what foot.

Tell us - broken necklace with diamond charm.

raisincharlie
11-05-2008, 03:33 PM
The SW says they took 4 pairs of shoes. For all we know they found the missing shoes elsewhere in the house. I do wish they would detail items taken a bit more. Tell us size, brand and what foot.

Tell us - broken necklace with diamond charm.

Then they would also be telling the defendents lawyer what they have - unfortunately we have to put up with not knowing too :)

Anderson
11-05-2008, 03:37 PM
Then they would also be telling the defendents lawyer what they have - unfortunately we have to put up with not knowing too :)

I was wondering when they would pass over information to BC's lawyers. Would it be a certain amount of time before the trial starts?:confused:

raisincharlie
11-05-2008, 03:41 PM
I was wondering when they would pass over information to BC's lawyers. Would it be a certain amount of time before the trial starts?:confused:

As I understand NC law, the discovery laws requires that copies of the files have to be turned over in a timely manner beginning from the point a lawyer is assigned after an indictment and charges filed.

They were wanting those files pretty bad the week before, guess they get their wish. :)

Anderson
11-05-2008, 03:57 PM
As I understand NC law, the discovery laws requires that copies of the files have to be turned over in a timely manner beginning from the point a lawyer is assigned after an indictment and charges filed.

They were wanting those files pretty bad the week before, guess they get their wish. :)

So the lawyers probably know quite a lot right now. I wonder if they had the files when they updated their website. I am actually surprised that K&B are still maintaining the website. They are concerned about information being discussed in the media (and on websites) and using that as a reason to have the custody order sealed. I do wonder what it is that they are worried about becoming public knowledge related to the CO. I suppose that the Judge may have indicated Brad's likely involvement in the murder? I don't necessarily think this should be public knowledge, but I do find it interesting that K&B are willing to continue to post information on their website. I also think that it's interesting that they are actually drawing the public's attention to websleuths. I don't know think that is a very smart PR strategy.:bang:

However, if K&B had the files before updating the website, then this does pinpoint their areas of concern. They seem particularly concerned about the 'mussed?' clothes and dismissing their relevance in the case.

raisincharlie
11-05-2008, 04:08 PM
So the lawyers probably know quite a lot right now. I wonder if they had the files when they updated their website. I am actually surprised that K&B are still maintaining the website. They are concerned about information being discussed in the media (and on websites) and using that as a reason to have the custody order sealed. I do wonder what it is that they are worried about becoming public knowledge related to the CO. I suppose that the Judge may have indicated Brad's likely involvement in the murder? I don't necessarily think this should be public knowledge, but I do find it interesting that K&B are willing to continue to post information on their website. I also think that it's interesting that they are actually drawing the public's attention to websleuths. I don't know think that is a very smart PR strategy.:bang:

However, if K&B had the files before updating the website, then this does pinpoint their areas of concern. They seem particularly concerned about the 'mussed?' clothes and dismissing their relevance in the case.

I don't think they had a lot of the files when they did this Anderson - it takes a while to copy files and what not and the DA is not going to hurry. I think this was all reaction to the 29 October search warrant. Surely they would not have had time to go through everything either I would think - has to be a pretty large file.

SleuthyGal
11-05-2008, 04:10 PM
Hi Anderson! nice to see you

A couple of things I considered: just because Brad SAID that Nancy ran in Sauconys doesn't mean it's the truth--maybe she did, and maybe she didn't. Obviously she owned at least 2 pairs of ASICS too. BTW they saw the RIGHT shoes of each of those 2 pair; the left shoes are/were missing from their mates, as per the SW probable cause.

As for the diamond necklace, if Nancy ever did take it off, it would be important to know where she kept her jewelry...did she have a jewelry box in her BR? Or did she keep her other jewelry in a drawer in a piece of furniture in her room, or closet? And was the diamond necklace found with/among her other jewelry? If it was the only piece found in the desk where LE confiscated it, then WHY was it not with her jewelry?

A woman normally takes off her jewelry and puts it away or at least places it near her other jewelry. That, of course, presumes that Nancy actually did take off her necklace at some point.

garner_nc
11-05-2008, 04:38 PM
A couple of things I considered: just because Brad SAID that Nancy ran in Sauconys doesn't mean it's the truth--maybe she did, and maybe she didn't. Obviously she owned at least 2 pairs of ASICS too. BTW they saw the RIGHT shoes of each of those 2 pair; the left shoes are/were missing from their mates, as per the SW probable cause.



K&B's website says "Cary Police Detective J.A. Young finds significance in a pair of missing shoes from another room, of another brand, of the wrong size, a month later, in a house that was partially packed for a move."

The CPD has never indicated male or female shoes if I remember correctly. We assume they are NC because they are listed as an issue in the SW. Might they belong to BC. We will have to wait and see.

SleuthyGal
11-05-2008, 04:48 PM
K&B's website says "Cary Police Detective J.A. Young finds significance in a pair of missing shoes from another room, of another brand, of the wrong size, a month later, in a house that was partially packed for a move."

The CPD has never indicated male or female shoes if I remember correctly. We assume they are NC because they are listed as an issue in the SW. Might they belong to BC. We will have to wait and see.

Well the shoes are either Nancy's or they are Brad's. So why would either Nancy or Brad have purchased shoes of "the wrong size?" And how does K&B know the missing shoes and/or the found shoes in the garage are the "wrong size?" Wrong according to who?

garner_nc
11-05-2008, 04:55 PM
I was just pointing out that the ASICS could have been BC that had missing shoes and not NC. If they end up being his does that "mean" anything? Or would they have to be NC in order to be relevant?

raisincharlie
11-05-2008, 05:09 PM
I was just pointing out that the ASICS could have been BC that had missing shoes and not NC. If they end up being his does that "mean" anything? Or would they have to be NC in order to be relevant?


If they are Brad's and are consistent with those observed in the video from the store, guess that means something if only two of the same foot were found. So yeah, they could be Brads but the implication is something quite different and not so sure that would be favorable either.

Anderson
11-08-2008, 03:18 PM
I don't think they had a lot of the files when they did this Anderson - it takes a while to copy files and what not and the DA is not going to hurry. I think this was all reaction to the 29 October search warrant. Surely they would not have had time to go through everything either I would think - has to be a pretty large file.

I see. That makes more sense then. It will be interesting to see what K&B do in the future.

Anderson
11-08-2008, 03:28 PM
Hi Anderson! nice to see you

A couple of things I considered: just because Brad SAID that Nancy ran in Sauconys doesn't mean it's the truth--maybe she did, and maybe she didn't. Obviously she owned at least 2 pairs of ASICS too. BTW they saw the RIGHT shoes of each of those 2 pair; the left shoes are/were missing from their mates, as per the SW probable cause.

As for the diamond necklace, if Nancy ever did take it off, it would be important to know where she kept her jewelry...did she have a jewelry box in her BR? Or did she keep her other jewelry in a drawer in a piece of furniture in her room, or closet? And was the diamond necklace found with/among her other jewelry? If it was the only piece found in the desk where LE confiscated it, then WHY was it not with her jewelry?

A woman normally takes off her jewelry and puts it away or at least places it near her other jewelry. That, of course, presumes that Nancy actually did take off her necklace at some point.

Hi Sleuthy!

I have missed all of you!:)

I agree with you about the jewellry. It will be important to know where the necklace was found. So much time has passed though. I wonder if that would give BC's lawyers an opportunity to argue that Brad had changed the location for one reason or another. If the necklace has been repaired, then that would perhaps be particularly significant. Surely that is something that Nancy would have mentioned in passing to one of her friends. I do wonder if they will be able to determine whether or not it was broken. Brad really should have passed the necklace on to her family when they asked for it, IMO. That looks odd in itself, given that he said that he passed on the jewellry in July. In itself it doesn't prove anything, but it may be another one of those things that could sway a jury. Yesterday's article about computer evidence is interesting. I do wonder what searches were found on Brad's computers. I must be patient, I suppose.

Anderson
11-08-2008, 03:31 PM
Well the shoes are either Nancy's or they are Brad's. So why would either Nancy or Brad have purchased shoes of "the wrong size?" And how does K&B know the missing shoes and/or the found shoes in the garage are the "wrong size?" Wrong according to who?

This is starting to remind me of OJ's glove defence!:crazy:

Maja
11-08-2008, 05:02 PM
Do we know if LE went through the Cooper house with a special light that detects urine? I recall moving out of places and the landlord using one to ensure there were no traces of dog urine in the carpet. I've wanted to ask this for a while. I believe the light will pick up all urine and there has been speculation over whether NC lost her bowels during the struggle which would explain BC's massive cleaning "campaign".

Star12
11-08-2008, 06:19 PM
Hi Sleuthy!

I have missed all of you!:)

I agree with you about the jewellry. It will be important to know where the necklace was found. So much time has passed though. I wonder if that would give BC's lawyers an opportunity to argue that Brad had changed the location for one reason or another. If the necklace has been repaired, then that would perhaps be particularly significant. Surely that is something that Nancy would have mentioned in passing to one of her friends. I do wonder if they will be able to determine whether or not it was broken. Brad really should have passed the necklace on to her family when they asked for it, IMO. That looks odd in itself, given that he said that he passed on the jewellry in July. In itself it doesn't prove anything, but it may be another one of those things that could sway a jury. Yesterday's article about computer evidence is interesting. I do wonder what searches were found on Brad's computers. I must be patient, I suppose.

About the repair - I would think it would be of supreme importance if it was indeed broken and then repaired since Nancy's death.

And yes, BC DID make it sound as though all her jewelry had been given to the Rentzes. If not a complete liar, BC is certainly devious. :::shudder:::

SleuthyGal
11-08-2008, 06:57 PM
Do we know if LE went through the Cooper house with a special light that detects urine? I've wanted to ask this for a while. I believe the light will pick up all urine and there has been speculation over whether NC lost her bowels during the struggle which would explain BC's massive cleaning "campaign".

I don't know how we'd know such a thing since LE hasn't released any info about their investigation other than the SWs and list of items seized. If it isn't in the list of documents in the legal docs section at the top of the board we don't know about it. Not until the trial will be learn anything else, and speculation is the trial could be a year+ away.