April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[jrb0124]

Good chance?

I apparently confused you, so let me clarify a little better: if NC was murdered by someone she knew, and that someone is not BC, its probable that of the 'someones' she knew - that person has testified.

 

[Just the Fax]

You should read the article, it includes reactions from neighbors - most of which were not as ho-hum as yours.

Rape = murder :waitasec:

 

[SleuthinNC]

She testified to this in court? What were the "meetings" about? Did she use the term "meeting"? TIA

JA testified to it in court. The people submitting affidavits hired a lawyer and had several meetings. Listen to the testimony if you need further clarification.

 

[Just the Fax]

I apparently confused you, so let me clarify a little better: if NC was murdered by someone she knew, and that someone is not BC, its probable that of the 'someones' she knew - that person has testified.

Yea jrb0124, that's why I laughed.

 

[justthinking2008]

That the defense is trying to "fool" people? That defense is trying to imply that witnesses are lying and they are not? That she did "always" wear that necklace?

The measurements do match up. The video camera is not a straight ahead shot like the photograph. Visually raise her shoulders until her chin (where it should be because you can't see that) lines up with her chin in the photo. The pendant in the middle of the circle will be in the same place.

Sorry, based on other photos in order for this to be the necklace, the chain would have to be at least 2 inches longer. I see her jawline and her chin, sorry we must agree to disagree, IMO she is not wearing the necklace and even if she was it does not logically lead anyone to believe that anyone in particular murdered her. If BC kept it for the money, then why was she wearing the earrings.:banghead:

 

[Danielle59]

Please see the response in red above

1. He told NC to open up a bank account so he could deposit money directly into it for her. Which "friend" told this story? Actually, this is not a good example of a "nice" behavior, IMO, as NC needed to open an account, in BC'S opinion, because he took her off the old accounts or opened new leaving her off the accounts. BTW, he didn't tell her he was doing this. Nice????

2. When she went to the beach, they spoke on the phone every day, according to the records.Which time at the beach was this? Was it 8/2007 or 6/2008? Obviously a lot changed after 12/2007 when Brad admitted he lied, for almost a year, about his affair with HM.

3. They had plans with another couple the day she went missing.Perhaps NC felt safer in greater numbers rather than being alone with BC.

4. There are lots of examples that things were not as bad as a few people (that were proven liars) have said.
He may have been okay outside of his marital relationship, but within it, IMO, he was controling and unreachable. .

I am only going to reply to these few things because to respond to all was too much work due to the way you responded to the original post. I have numbered the issues.

1. We don't know that they didn't discuss her being removed from the accounts, all we know is what some of her "new" friends have said and we also now much of what they have said is not true. I posted a link earlier to affidavits where there was proven out.

2. He seemed to have had two encounters with HM, if her encouter with JP was not an affair why was his an affair with HM? The last vacation she was on the friends testified he did not call her, I posted links earlier that refute that in the affidavits. They also said many other things that were refuted.

3. Maybe the marriage wasn't as bad as some of the new friends want is to believe, the truth is that NC had not been in touch with her divorce attorney for months.

4. That is only your opinion, the evidence we have seen and heard so far, even from her own friends, really doesn't bear that out.

 

[jrb0124]

Towhee...know what you mean.
Unbelievable some here actually think witnesses in this case are the more likely culprit.
Anyone but Bradley.:banghead:

So if I murdered someone I knew, and another person was arrested and indicted, and if I was a witness at the trial this would make me untouchable as an alternate suspect? Not quite following the logic there :waitasec:

 

[ncsu95]

That the defense is trying to "fool" people? That defense is trying to imply that witnesses are lying and they are not? That she did "always" wear that necklace?

The measurements do match up. The video camera is not a straight ahead shot like the photograph. Visually raise her shoulders until her chin (where it should be because you can't see that) lines up with her chin in the photo. The pendant in the middle of the circle will be in the same place.

I'll ask you again. If the prosecution does not offer a rebuttal witness about the necklace, will you agree that it isn't there? We know they read these boards...and they have had all weekend to send AF or someone else to HT wearing that necklace and recreating the video. Should be cut and dry testimony. But again, I think you see what you want to see because you bought into the theory that she always wore it.

 

[jrb0124]

Rape = murder :waitasec:

I don't think you 'get it', sorry...

 

[Cheyenne130]

Sorry, based on other photos in order for this to be the necklace, the chain would have to be at least 2 inches longer. I see her jawline and her chin, sorry we must agree to disagree, IMO she is not wearing the necklace and even if she was it does not logically lead anyone to believe that anyone in particular murdered her. If BC kept it for the money, then why was she wearing the earrings.

It's not that he kept it for the money. It's that it came off during her murder. I don't know how it came off but it was on when she was at the party, she wore it to sleep, she wore it to run and it was not on her when her body was found but it was found in their house. The photo enhanced by otto shows the pendant that the defense claimed is not there. If the prosecution doesn't have somebody local to enhance it for them, they should hire otto.

 

[Just the Fax]

So if I murdered someone I knew, and another person was arrested and indicted, and if I was a witness at the trial this would make me untouchable as an alternate suspect? Not quite following the logic there :waitasec:

Perhaps you need to ask Kurtz?

1- White van of Hispanics?
2- Red van of Hispanics?
3- Ring and run teens?
4- FaceBook stalker?
5- JP?
6- JA?
7- CD

Anybody but Bradley, right?

 

[Just the Fax]

I don't think you 'get it', sorry...

Why so snarky jrb0124?
I "get it".
The agent was raped, not murdered and dumped in a ditch.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I'll ask you again. If the prosecution does not offer a rebuttal witness about the necklace, will you agree that it isn't there? We know they read these boards...and they have had all weekend to send AF or someone else to HT wearing that necklace and recreating the video. Should be cut and dry testimony. But again, I think you see what you want to see because you bought into the theory that she always wore it.

I couldn't possibly agree with that. I can see it with my own eyes. Unless you think otto "photoshopped" that pendant into that picture, it's there. If the prosecution doesn't present the enhanced video in rebuttal, it will just be another prosecution blunder.

I am very upset with your characterization that the prosecution would fake some video for evidence. I thought you were unbiased and on the fence. That was a disappointing suggestion. MOO

 

[SleuthSayer]

I do not see the necklace, I see tan lines, also the measurements do not match up. Finally, please tell me what difference it makes, does it mean anything at all, if so what?

Agreed. I have never found the necklace, the sticks, or the ducks to be all that interesting in terms of guilt or innocence.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

I couldn't possibly agree with that. I can see it with my own eyes. Unless you think otto "photoshopped" that pendant into that picture, it's there. If the prosecution doesn't present the enhanced video in rebuttal, it will just be another prosecution blunder.

I am very upset with your characterization that the prosecution would fake some video for evidence. I thought you were unbiased and on the fence. That was a disappointing suggestion. MOO

I don't think he's suggesting faking video for evidence. I think he was saying there's time to do a test video to see if the necklace would show up at all.

 

[Tink56]

Ya'll watching the news...Pres. will say Osama bin Laden is dead...

 

[otto]

Hey... are you to Otto that enhanced the video picture of NC in HT not wearing the necklace?? If so, can you tell me where it is? I missed it. thanks.

I am. What I did is take a photo of Nancy wearing the necklace and put it beside a still of her from the shopping video (July 11). I lined up the shoulders in an attempt to make the images the same scale, although one person commented that they were not scaled the same. Someone else thought they saw a the necklace and marked it with a circle. I also marked that circle on the image I posted. I personally do not see a necklace.

 

[jrb0124]

Why so snarky jrb0124?
I "get it".
The agent was raped, not murdered and dumped in a ditch.

You don't understand the point of the story. Sometimes you have to take a broader view of something to see it for what it is. I already suggested that you read the article, but the snippets I posted should also suffice.

Sorry you take my reply to you as snarky (its not) - I just think you tend to take challenges to your outlook a little too personally.

Pers the mods earlier - lets try to keep it civil okay?

 

[SleuthSayer]

Ya'll watching the news...Pres. will say Osama bin Laden is dead...

:clap:

 

[RaleighNative]

Hi everyone! Sign off W/S and turn on the TV. Bin Laden has been caught, is dead, and his body is in US posession. Obama to speak any moment.