April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[less0305]

And you don't think the prosecution does that? I imagine, and would expect, both teams to at least monitor a site like this. There has been questions asked in this trial from both sides that are a direct result of discussion from this site (in my opinion).

Oh, I agree. For the record, I know nobody. I don't work for any attorneys or law firms or district attorney's office. I do have law enforcement experience, but am not currently in LE. I don't know the family. I don't know any of the friends or neighbors. I'm just little 'ole me expressing my opinions cause that's how I roll. :crazy:

 

[ncsu95]

There is everything to indicate that a call was made from the home phone to his cell phone. There is no evidence other than Brad's statement that the call came from Nancy.

But there is no evidence that the call was generated electronically...which increases the likelihood that it was NC (and I don't believe for one moment that the 4 year old made the call).

 

[Cheyenne130]

Thanks. That makes sense. It doesn't mean one of her friends couldn't watch the younger one.

I DO NOT THINK SHE WAS INVOLVED WITH ANYONE (yelling it so there is no confusion as to my thoughts on it). I'm simply saying she had the opportunity to if she had wanted to.

That's O.K. I don't mind the yelling. I'm multi-tasking and sometimes need yelling to get my attention. :biggrin:

 

[less0305]

Of course not. But the jury can believe he's guilty and yet the state didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That alone gets a not guilty verdict, which does not mean, btw, the person is factually innocent.

There are posters here who have proclaimed that Brad Cooper is 100% innocent. I am asking which theory they subscribe to in order to determine factual innocence (versus those who don't know if he is or think maybe he isn't but they aren't past reasonable doubt).

I'd love to know who and why from the BII side. I can't even imagine it, so it would be nice to at least have an idea of where it comes from.

 

[ncsu95]

Of course not. But the jury can believe he's guilty and yet the state didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That alone gets a not guilty verdict, which does not mean, btw, the person is factually innocent.

There are posters here who have proclaimed that Brad Cooper is 100% innocent. I am asking which theory they subscribe to in order to determine factual innocence (versus those who don't know if he is or think maybe he isn't but they aren't past reasonable doubt).

Thanks for clarifying. If I had to vote at this point, I would hesitantly fall in your first category.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Then you are asking the jury to believe there was an accomplice. The state hasn't even suggested that. Do you think the jury is going to just make that leap? I don't.

I would not call a 4 year old an accomplice. I know that you have seen it stated many times that at the age of four, a child can call a phone number. Since there was a 4 year old in the house, there is no way of knowing if Nancy was there to make that call or if the child was directed to call. And before you say that it would be too risky to involve a 4 year old, it is much riskier to commit murder. MOO

 

[less0305]

That's O.K. I don't mind the yelling. I'm multi-tasking and sometimes need yelling to get my attention. :biggrin:

LOL - I'm facebooking while I chat here! For the record, I have no topless photos on my facebook flipping the bird.:great:

 

[dramamama]

Did Nancy leave the house to go jogging that morning or not? What evidence do they have that she did not leave the house? What evidence do they have that she did?

Bc can't remember who was doing the laundry or where he was sleeping.

 

[ncsu95]

I honestly felt this way when Pros was discussing the 'job hopping' with JW. We had a pages long discussion on they why he would have had so many, could it be something not so sterling etc. We also discussed his website for 500k/1m company with a website under construction. But, then again, common sense would dictate these questions would be asked. Credibility.

I would hestiate, though, to point a finger at any one poster as being a mole or spy. Maybe they got lucky, and maybe they didn't.

Kelly

I don't think either side has people actually posting....just reading. Those are very good points you brought up about the cross of JW. I think showing the size of the router during direct came from this site as well since Kurtz didn't cross the Cisco expert on that before. I'm sure there are many ideas on both sides that came from here.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I don't know that it's so much to convince people on boards. I'm not about conspiracy theories either - but I do believe it is possible to try to gauge public opinion and whether to go with this witness or that witness and where we should make our biggest push. How does the public feel if we trend this way or trend that way in our presentation. That's just my thoughts on it. Gritguy was very nice in explaining to me that perhaps the defense team already has their horse in the stream and can't exactly change up if they find public opinion is against their tactics. I appreciated his experience and knowledge - but he also said he practiced in a time where the internet was not what it is today. I still believe it's *possible* that defense teams plant someone - a legal aid, an intern, a family member - to gauge public opinion and get a feel for how their case is going. JMO - and MO only. I think anything is possible in this day and age.

There are professionals that provide that kind of service -- jury consultants who do focus groups, mock trials, etc.

If the defense attorneys are gauging how their case is playing by looking here, they are even bigger idiots than I think they are. Who cares how their trial strategy is going for a bunch of people who have combed through every bit of data they can find for nearly 3 years, researching all of the details about every piece of that data, etc.? They should care how it would be playing to 12 people who theoretically knew nothing about the case until 6 weeks ago or whatever it was. Those are the people that they have to win over.

 

[less0305]

I would not call a 4 year old an accomplice. I know that you have seen it stated many times that at the age of four, a child can call a phone number. Since there was a 4 year old in the house, there is no way of knowing if Nancy was there to make that call or if the child was directed to call. And before you say that it would be too risky to involve a 4 year old, it is much riskier to commit murder. MOO

Heck, you could duct tape a child's finger to a cordless phone and ride around until she happened to move. It's a stretch, but it's a possibility. Just sayin'.

 

[less0305]

There are professionals that provide that kind of service -- jury consultants who do focus groups, mock trials, etc.

If the defense attorneys are gauging how their case is playing by looking here, they are even bigger idiots than I think they are. Who cares how their trial strategy is going for a bunch of people who have combed through every bit of data they can find for nearly 3 years, researching all of the details about every piece of that data, etc.? They should care how it would be playing to 12 people who theoretically knew nothing about the case until 6 weeks ago or whatever it was. Those are the people that they have to win over.

Okay. Thank you.

 

[sunshine05]

Of course not. But the jury can believe he's guilty and yet the state didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That alone gets a not guilty verdict, which does not mean, btw, the person is factually innocent.

There are posters here who have proclaimed that Brad Cooper is 100% innocent. I am asking which theory they subscribe to in order to determine factual innocence (versus those who don't know if he is or think maybe he isn't but they aren't past reasonable doubt).

That would be me. I believe he is innocent based on everything that's been presented. I'm honestly surprised so many people are so sure he did it with absolutely no proof.

I had gut feelings he was innocent early on and I explained that. One example was I thought it very unlikely a husband would leave their wife exposed like that. It makes me truly believe that someone else did this after she left the house that morning. (I can go into that further if you are interested, but I don't think anyone really wants to hear what I think may have happened to her) and it doesn't really matter because the state hasn't provided a shred of proof that he did it.

At one point, when the F-Drive data came out, I was in shock to be honest because I felt so sure they had the wrong guy. But I accepted that evidence and changed my mind. It was the smoking gun. Now that I see clear evidence the computer was tampered with, I'm back to - I don't think he did it and the tampering helps solidify my feelings.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

< 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?

It is not up to us to find out who did it, but rather, to see if we any reasonable doubt that BC may not be the guilty part. As of now, I have a lot of reasonable doubt. However, things change. This case is not over. I may change my mind, but I will not decide completely until the entire case is over and both sides have had their chances to full present their case

 

[less0305]

I don't think either side has people actually posting....just reading. Those are very good points you brought up about the cross of JW. I think showing the size of the router during direct came from this site as well since Kurtz didn't cross the Cisco expert on that before. I'm sure there are many ideas on both sides that came from here.

Apparently not. I was just informed how stupid that was.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

I've never been in to conspiracy theories. It's not because I think that conspiracies never happen. But, it's just that the conspiracy theories that I hear about are typically so illogical. This is such a case.

The thinking is that the defense is planting posters on some message board to try to convince people that Brad is not guilty? What would be the point in that? Is the defense supposedly unaware that Brads fate is not going to be decided by a public opinion poll? It's going to be decided by 12 people who [supposedly] are not out reading message boards about the case. If they are, then the trial has a much bigger problem. (That being said, I am skeptical that jurors stick to the rules as much as they should.)

You would think that rather than trying to sway the opinions of anonymous people on message boards, the defense would be focused on their futile attempt to keep the guy out of jail.

Who would ever suggest that the defense is planting posters on message boards? I think that is beyond far fetched. I think they have enough credibility in themselves to have to resort to such tactics.

 

[sunshine05]

I would not call a 4 year old an accomplice. I know that you have seen it stated many times that at the age of four, a child can call a phone number. Since there was a 4 year old in the house, there is no way of knowing if Nancy was there to make that call or if the child was directed to call. And before you say that it would be too risky to involve a 4 year old, it is much riskier to commit murder. MOO

The state will have to make that suggestion then in closing and not assume the jury is going to make that leap.

I think that would blow away a huge chunk of their case because they put so much stock in explaining all the ways it could have been done, routers, fxo ports, experts from Cisco, etc. I think the jury would fine it "weak" if they all of a sudden were to say "or maybe the 4 year old made that call". Don't you?

 

[dramamama]

And you know, Gracie, I've been thinking about it some more - and being the control freak that he was, even if he believed or had knowledge that the separation agreement was just a first draft, I don't think BC wanted to give up control of just how much he believed NC should receive after separation. I don't think he liked one bit that the control would be taken over by the State of N.C. Even if the terms were less than what was asked for in the agreement, it still meant somebody else was telling him just what he would be prescribed to pay. I honestly believe BC thought when he admitted the affair and told her he was in love with HM that she would just "lay down and die" and skulk back to Canada to her family and be done with him. That didn't happen. All of a sudden NC grew a backbone and called an attorney and wasn't just going to accept HIS terms. Once the state was going to be involved, he wasn't going to have any of that. He knew he couldn't control the state like he could NC.

I'd like to ask your and Madeline's opinion of another issue I've been kicking around - do you think it's possible that NC might have suggested or threatened to sue HM for alienation or do you think her attorney may have mentioned it in any communications with NC that BC stole - and that sent BC over the edge?

You didn't ask my opinion, but i say yes! In fact, I have wondered if that was topic of fights in the last week. Her saying if he doesn't put forth a separation agreement she will sue HM, and him saying he will sue JP for child support.....she might have used it as an ultimatum and things just got uglier...

 

[Cheyenne130]

It is not up to us to find out who did it, but rather, to see if we any reasonable doubt that BC may not be the guilty part. As of now, I have a lot of reasonable doubt. However, things change. This case is not over. I may change my mind, but I will not decide completely until the entire case is over and both sides have had their chances to full present their case

Actually it's not up to us to find out anything or determine anything (unless you are saying that you're on the jury). We're discussing the case hopefully and for most of us in a friendly manner. It's an interesting discussion but it doesn't really matter a whole lot more than debating, "who is more powerful? Superman or Batman?" It doesn't have a thing to do with the outcome of this case. Actually if we all agreed 100%, the board would die. There would be nothing left to talk about except, "What are you doing for Easter dinner?"

 

[jmflu]

It is not up to us to find out who did it, but rather, to see if we any reasonable doubt that BC may not be the guilty part. As of now, I have a lot of reasonable doubt. However, things change. This case is not over. I may change my mind, but I will not decide completely until the entire case is over and both sides have had their chances to full present their case

It's not up to us to do anything. Someone killed Nancy. If not Brad, it doesn't automatically default to "no one." Hopefully you'll still care that Nancy was murdered and put all of the energy you have devoted to defending BC into finding the real killer.