April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[SleuthSayer]

Ohhh Dear..You know entirely too much about this stuff :floorlaugh:

Given Nancy had a phone and no cash since she came home from her VAKA with her family..I doubt she had a throwaway phone..LOL..Maybe she should have had to keep Brad out of her business....Int heinsight wonderful??

Remember she had no credit cards, no bank accts and relied 100% on whatever Brad gave her...Doubt very much she had a throwaway phone to connect with a mystery lover..She was far too busy being a Mom..IMO

Ha, yeah, I know way more about some things that I would like to.

As I said, I don't think she had a second phone either, but money wouldn't necessarily be an impediment to having one. The other person in the affair could foot the bill for the minutes.

Just so you don't think that I'm making this up, here's an article about secret cells.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

After one date? What the heck kind of exclusivity does one have after ONE date? I heard that in Brad's deposition and was taken aback by it then. One date and he calls it 'cheating' to have breakfast with someone else?

If you will look at the quote you are responding to, I specifically say I am not implying cheating after one date. Please don't put words in my mouth. BC did not call it cheating either. He was asked and responded to, a very specific question. Do NOT accuse me of misquoting him, or of implying "cheating" when I have specifically not done so.

 

[sunshine05]

Here's where the Brad is Innocent folk need to make a decision.

First you have people seeing a runner they thought was Nancy juxtaposed with some random van(s) seen in the area. Implying? Implying Nancy was abducted from the public streets of Cary by some attacker, and this was a random attack. Forget the victim had no defensive wounds let's just go with random attacker, maybe with access to a van of some color.

Next you have someone who had enough knowledge to know something about the murder, where the victim was found, enough details to know or reasonably believe that a changed timestamp on a secure CSCO laptop would nail Brad, but good. Does this person bother to plant any physical evidence connecting Brad Cooper to his wife's murder? No they don't. They just somehow 'hack' into an IBM laptop that is password protected and 'plant' something. This does not imply a random perp, does it?

Unless you believe that both a random perp AND someone else conspired to kill Nancy and pin the murder on Brad, you need to go with one or the other.

So which is it?

- Random attacker?

- Someone who knew Nancy?

- Someone who knew Nancy and had skillzzz to hack into Brad's computer?

It is all speculation. It is speculation that BC killed his wife (there is no proof). Since there is no proof, doesn't it make sense to speculate about other possible scenarios? Maybe it was random or maybe it WAS someone she knew. I wish we had more pieces to the puzzle. But just because we don't have them, does not prove that BC did this.

I believe the hacking could have been done by CPD themselves. What does that do for this case? We already have the blackberry wipe, the mica on the shoes...the ones he was wearing to search for his wife (talk about throwing mud at the walls), the remembered piece of straw, the "long sleeves instead of short sleeves referred to as a "typo", clear indication CPD fed information to AS for the custody interrogation, extreme evasiveness and forgetfulness on the stand while defense questioned them, Bazemore's statements so early on, the extreme blocking of defense's attempts to call into question things on the computer logs.

So I ask, how would all of you feel about proof that the computer was tampered with? Would that change things?

 

[Cheyenne130]

I too wonder how /why she would feel whatever she thought or knew back 7 years ago to be relevant?? and she called Kurtz and Co..not the LE??..I would ROFLMAO if in rebuttal> they brought her x-husband on the stand to indicate her true agenda...She was enjoying her experience far too much:waitasec:..and only wonder how much she embellished..common term used by Defense Team!! :floorlaugh:

I would hope the prosecution wouldn't waste time with that. Her testimony added zero to the question of who killed NC. She didn't make BC look any less guilty as her testimony had nothing to do with the crime being tried. MOO

 

[ncsu95]

Yay 3 cheers for the defense team. Is everybody present and accounted for now?

I'm here. Sorry I'm late.

 

[cody100]

I'm here. Sorry I'm late.

Welcome back. It is lively discussion hour here tonight.

 

[sunshine05]

The defense did the exact same thing with a number of witnesses.

I must have missed that. Which state witnesses were attacked on a personal level (not on their testimony)?

 

[kljohnson0458]

Just bits and pieces. I think it will probably run around the same time as the Jason Young trial, and I have far more interest in the Young trial than Casey Anthony. I do wonder who the heck is Caylee's bio father though.

I am interested in the JY trial as well. CA is just to hear the verdict for me. On another board not mentioned that horse has been beat to death. I need to get off the fence on this on before I move on to another.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I must have missed that. Which state witnesses were attacked on a personal level (not on their testimony)?

Sorry. I should have isolated the specific part that I was responding to:

"implying that she changed her testimony"

That was the piece that I was mentally focusing on when I said that the defense did the same thing.

 

[ncsu95]

Here's where the Brad is Innocent folk need to make a decision.

First you have people seeing a runner they thought was Nancy juxtaposed with some random van(s) seen in the area. Implying? Implying Nancy was abducted from the public streets of Cary by some attacker, and this was a random attack. Forget the victim had no defensive wounds let's just go with random attacker, maybe with access to a van of some color.

Next you have someone who had enough knowledge to know something about the murder, where the victim was found, enough details to know or reasonably believe that a changed timestamp on a secure CSCO laptop would nail Brad, but good. Does this person bother to plant any physical evidence connecting Brad Cooper to his wife's murder? No they don't. They just somehow 'hack' into an IBM laptop that is password protected and 'plant' something. This does not imply a random perp, does it?

Unless you believe that both a random perp AND someone else conspired to kill Nancy and pin the murder on Brad, you need to go with one or the other.

So which is it?

- Random attacker?

- Someone who knew Nancy?

- Someone who knew Nancy and had skillzzz to hack into Brad's computer?

Any of them can lead to reasonable doubt.

 

[gracielee]

If you will look at the quote you are responding to, I specifically say I am not implying cheating after one date. Please don't put words in my mouth. BC did not call it cheating either. He was asked and responded to, a very specific question. Do NOT accuse me of misquoting him, or of implying "cheating" when I have specifically not done so.

I think you misinterpreted my reply. In NO way was I implying anything about your post. I thought you were simply repeating what Brad had said, as was I. I can't recall if Brad referred to it as cheating, but he used some terminology implying that. Because at the time I heard it, I was like 'what?' One date? I'd forgotten all about it until you repeated it here. I certainly wasn't trying to put words in *your* mouth. My reply had only to do with the idea Brad had as to some sort of exclusivity after one date. Especially when he said in the depo that 'nancy had asked him for a date three times but 'he turned her down'.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Ha, yeah, I know way more about some things that I would like to.

As I said, I don't think she had a second phone either, but money wouldn't necessarily be an impediment to having one. The other person in the affair could foot the bill for the minutes.

Just so you don't think that I'm making this up, here's an article about secret cells.

Your link kinda made me chuckle abit..first this women knew about this secondary cell phone and felt the need to inquire about his possible use for an affair...So this phone in this case wasnt unknown...but I do get your point..and given Brad's expertise and ability to snoop and find out stuff..I am sure he woulda known about such items..

nancy was far to busy being a mom and making sure they were properly looked after, even tho she didnt trust Brad..she hardly expected him to harm her or the kids, however..I am sure she felt he WOULD try to HURT her by taking those kids and claim she was a "Bad Mom" or something..Now that I think is what she believed....

BUT something happened just before July 11th,2008 to make her contact Realtor to get out QUIK?? Wonder what that was about?? And please dont deny that Brad knew about that contact..OF course he did..IMO:maddening:

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Ah, I see. Well, I sure would hate to be a witness or know a witness in this trial. Looks like a tough thing to go through.

Although I do not speak with person on a normal basis we see each once in a while through friends and kids. It has been very tough for him. I truly feel terrible for what he has gone through and is going through. I would not wish this on anyone. This is a terrible situation for all - NC, friends, family, BC and even his family.

 

[ncsu95]

I too wonder how /why she would feel whatever she thought or knew back 7 years ago to be relevant?? and she called Kurtz and Co..not the LE??..I would ROFLMAO if in rebuttal> they brought her x-husband on the stand to indicate her true agenda...She was enjoying her experience far too much:waitasec:..and only wonder how much she embellished..common term used by Defense Team!! :floorlaugh:

She called law enforcement first.

 

[less0305]

Ask the Cary Police. They should have thought to formulate SOMETHING that could have served as a decent investigation. (Not to satisfy the naysayers, but definitely to satisfy their own reputation as LE and need for Justice for NC and her family).

Or WCSO, or the RPD. (Someone was saying that the JN case has nothing to do with this....but here's something funny. Her HUSBAND matched the composite and the physical description of the "POI" in the case, except for the race).

I just realized we have about 1 of these every 18 months that gets hotly debated. (DV homicides) We actually have way more than that, but it's strange to me that it seems to rotate around the triangle.

Luckily, the next two big ones really have no debate. (JY and RA)


This one though is a wash.

Not being snarky here - but don't kid yourself. There will be a group of people who will plant themselves here and tell us all how innocent JY and RA are. They will tell us the police bungled the case, the police are inept, the police are corrupt, the police are liars. They will tell us Michelle and Janet had boyfriends and lovers. They will tell us that evidence was mishandled. They will tell us evidence was neglected. They will tell us that Jason and Raven were singled out in the beginning and that the police had tunnel vision and let the real killer slip through their fingers. Just wait and see if it doesn't happen. It's happened for every other trial I have watched and commented on through WS or other forums/boards. I'd bet my last dime it will happen in JY and RA also.

 

[ncsu95]

SNIPPED AND BBM...To focus on an intriguing poster philosophy that I've seen repeated in trial after trial. Generally during the trial, message boards such as WS are populated by fairly new posters who have one concern..."their civic duty."

IMO, the average citizen doesn't have a complete understanding of the adversarial construction of the American jurisprudence system. The line about the prosecution's "responsibility" is almost a law school textbook line.

Innocence and guilt are secondary to this philosophy. The standard line that will follow is: "It is better to release 9 guilty people rather than convict 1 innocent person." Honestly, my response is we must also have the ability to trust the instincts of jurors and trust their ability to weigh the evidence. I have been amazed at the seriousness and logic and adherence to jury instructions that members of the juries on which I served have approached the task of looking at all the evidence and testimony.

Maybe all the posters whose words seem a little too oriented toward the defensive point of view are simply educated individuals who are well schooled in the finer points of legal speak. IDK...

I really DK....but I do know that comments such as yours and others recently on this forum cause me to ask, "Why?" The fervent nature and the righteousness with which the words are posted seem to indicate knowledge and experience that excludes the "average citizen." IMO...MOO...and all that stuff....:innocent:

You were actually responding to a lawyers post. I think he has a valid perspective on innocence until proven guilty.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I really think that the jury is going to steer away from all the technical stuff. The phone calls and computers and even the affairs and fights. It's going to come down to whether or not they believe she left the house that morning to jog. If they believe she did go jogging, they will most likely find Brad not guilty. If they believe she did not go jogging, obviously they will find Brad guilty. So far the defense produced two eye witnesses neither of whom can testify that they are sure it was Nancy. Neither of them knew her and determined that someone who ran past in a few seconds or less resembled the smiling face on the flyer. The jury is not going to micro-analyze all of this testimony the way we have done. MOO

 

[gracielee]

I'm here. Sorry I'm late.

You sir are being held in contempt!

:fence:

:slap:

:slapfight:

 

[Madeleine74]

Any of them can lead to reasonable doubt.

< sound of loud buzzer >

And another non answer.

If you (the royal you) believe Brad Cooper is innocent of this crime, then you must have a reason for it. And that reason must be based on something. If Brad didn't do it, then who did?

 

[sunshine05]

Not being snarky here - but don't kid yourself. There will be a group of people who will plant themselves here and tell us all how innocent JY and RA are. They will tell us the police bungled the case, the police are inept, the police are corrupt, the police are liars. They will tell us Michelle and Janet had boyfriends and lovers. They will tell us that evidence was mishandled. They will tell us evidence was neglected. They will tell us that Jason and Raven were singled out in the beginning and that the police had tunnel vision and let the real killer slip through their fingers. Just wait and see if it doesn't happen. It's happened for every other trial I have watched and commented on through WS or other forums/boards. I'd bet my last dime it will happen in JY and RA also.

Are you saying police are never inept or corrupt? Should we have blind trust in them?