Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 241
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In the shadow of Pikes Peak
    Posts
    239

    Opening Statements

    Opening statements are about to begin - figured I'd start a new thread for it.
    Here comes the State....

    http://www.wral.com/news/video/9236610/#/vid9236610


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GolferChick For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In the shadow of Pikes Peak
    Posts
    239
    The stream at WRAL is pretty good; sometimes will buffer, but overall is working well.

    The prosecution started with the day Nancy did not show up to her friend Jessica's house, and is now giving overview of Nancy's discovery of Brad's affair, Nancy's preparation for the divorce, the couple's finances, etc.


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to GolferChick For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In the shadow of Pikes Peak
    Posts
    239
    Prosecution says that all Nancy's emails were being intercepted by Brad from April 2008 until the time of her death....


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to GolferChick For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In the shadow of Pikes Peak
    Posts
    239
    Jury is released for the afternooon....


  8. The Following User Says Thank You to GolferChick For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Defense opening statements start in the morning. Nothing earth shattering presented during the opening, except maybe for the intercepting emails. Looks like a circumstantial case.


  10. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    16,856
    Interesting how the 2 phone calls from the landline were left hanging in the air, 2 phone calls, and the reference to VOIP. If the DA can prove Brad implemented those 2 phone calls, well...
    Racing Doesn't Lie


  11. The Following User Says Thank You to raisincharlie For This Useful Post:


  12. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,885
    Disappointed in the state's opening.
    I feel certain the defense will set the stage with a much more convincing and compelling argument.


  13. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,078
    Most criminal cases are circumstantial cases. That's because anything outside of a confession, or eyewitness, or a videotape of the murder is, by definition, circumstantial.

    That said, there were some important facts mentioned during opening statements:

    1. Nancy's running shoes were found in the garage on a shelf, right where she left them. And no other shoes of hers were gone, so she didn't use a different pair of running shoes. The obvious conclusion is that she was not wearing shoes on her feet when she left (or was taken out of the house). And when her body was found, there were no shoes on her feet or anywhere in the vicinity.

    2. Brad washed Nancy's dress from the party the night before. He claimed there was a stain on it. No other person saw such a stain.

    3. Brad was doing many loads of laundry, including Nancy's laundry the morning she went missing. This is counter to the norm.


  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  15. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,885
    Quote Originally Posted by SleuthyGal View Post
    Most criminal cases are circumstantial cases. That's because anything outside of a confession, or eyewitness, or a videotape of the murder is, by definition, circumstantial.

    That said, there were some important facts mentioned during opening statements:

    1. Nancy's running shoes were found in the garage on a shelf, right where she left them. And no other shoes of hers were gone, so she didn't use a different pair of running shoes. The obvious conclusion is that she was not wearing shoes on her feet when she left (or was taken out of the house). And when her body was found, there were no shoes on her feet or anywhere in the vicinity.

    2. Brad washed Nancy's dress from the party the night before. He claimed there was a stain on it. No other person saw such a stain.

    3. Brad was doing many loads of laundry, including Nancy's laundry the morning she went missing. This is counter to the norm.
    Was this the first time we heard about the "stained" dress?


  16. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,642
    Quote Originally Posted by raisincharlie View Post
    Interesting how the 2 phone calls from the landline were left hanging in the air, 2 phone calls, and the reference to VOIP. If the DA can prove Brad implemented those 2 phone calls, well...
    Yes, I want to know what time those calls were. If he caused the last phone call remotely, he likely did test calls much earlier that morning, before the time he said he left home for the grocery run.


  17. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by SleuthyGal View Post
    Most criminal cases are circumstantial cases. That's because anything outside of a confession, or eyewitness, or a videotape of the murder is, by definition, circumstantial.

    That said, there were some important facts mentioned during opening statements:

    1. Nancy's running shoes were found in the garage on a shelf, right where she left them. And no other shoes of hers were gone, so she didn't use a different pair of running shoes. The obvious conclusion is that she was not wearing shoes on her feet when she left (or was taken out of the house). And when her body was found, there were no shoes on her feet or anywhere in the vicinity.

    2. Brad washed Nancy's dress from the party the night before. He claimed there was a stain on it. No other person saw such a stain.

    3. Brad was doing many loads of laundry, including Nancy's laundry the morning she went missing. This is counter to the norm.
    For #1, isn't it possible she had more than 1 pair of running shoes? I certainly do.
    #2 - yes odd.
    #3 - I don't necessarily believe (although I don't not believe it) that it is counter to the norm. As we discussed way back when...this will be based on Nancy's words to friends. I'm sure my wife would say I don't do nearly as much as I actually do around the house. And she isn't mad at me or divorcing me.

    But I think to convict of murder, you are going to have to have more than he read her emails and did her laundry to convict. Hopefully they have more than what they presented during opening statements.


  18. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    Was this the first time we heard about the "stained" dress?
    I'm pretty sure we heard something about it and I'm trying to remember exactly where. It might have been during the depo where Brad was saying that Nancy complained at the party about a stain on her dress. This is not the first it's been mentioned, but it's been so long that I'm having trouble remembering the context. This is the first time, however, that we are hearing that NO ONE else at the party noticed any stain on her dress.


  19. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    Disappointed in the state's opening.
    I feel certain the defense will set the stage with a much more convincing and compelling argument.
    Defense will paint him as a devoted husband who had a single indiscretion because his wife quit having sex with him.


  20. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,078
    I'm quite surprised they didn't mention her necklace during opening statements. This is huge, IMHO. Nancy was known to never take off that necklace...ever. And it was found in a desk (possibly Brad's desk) inside the residence. It was something she would have worn at the party the night before and probably seen/noticed at least by a few women there (we women notice such things). That they didn't even bring it up has me wondering why.

    They sure didn't cover much in their opening...it was much more brief than I expected it would be. All of 30 or 40 min.


  21. The Following User Says Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  22. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    Was this the first time we heard about the "stained" dress?
    Brad was asked about laundering the dress in the depositions. I'll have to listen again for specifics about the stain, if any.


Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •