I don't believe he was sleeping when she got home (at midnight - that early?). I also don't believe it was premeditated (for the sake of planning it before, but I understand the state's charge of premeditation for strangulation and agree). It seems like it was an argument that escalated and then everything that happened next was planning to cover it up (exactly like SG spelled out in her recent post).
Re: the phone (VOIP or no-VOIP). I wonder if the defense is just trying to confuse the jury with the v-tech phone claim. My understanding of Voip is you can use whatever phone you want (hardware) as long as you have the connection to the computer line, no? If so, they could have a V-Tech phone (actual piece of hardware) on a Voip line. Is that possible?
Here's part of Mr. Kurtz's opening statement I'm having trouble with. Almost at the very end he talks quickly about a tarp. IIRC he says BC bought it at Nancy's request the day before she went missing. He said Nancy called him and requested he pickup a tarp for the painting she was doing at Jessica's, and that we will see video of him buying the tarp and a photo of the unopened tarp.
SERIOUSLY?! BC went out of his way to pick up a tarp for work Nancy was doing at Jessica's?!
I recall during the custody depos he said he left work and the only place he stopped was Lowe's Food for beer and then went straight to the Duncan's.
Interesting, no?
Back in 2008, we tracked the AT&T towers to check the triangulation of the cell coverage, and thus tracking capability. The HT , the vacant lot where body was dumped and the home were close enough that he was on the same tower the whole time. I bet he was smart enough to disable the GPS tracking that AM and thus the tracking would be within a large 3-4 mile area, not right to his home.
Found ANOTHER inconsistency regarding the tarp!
In listening to (Part 2) of Kurtz' opening, he claims no one knew Nancy had plans to paint at Jessica's, because Nancy had planned to take a run and then watch the girls while Brad played tennis with Mike Hiller @ 9:30am, so Nancy going over to JA's house wouldn't have made any sense. Plus he says JA didn't have the painting plans in her calender. So Kurtz is trying to claim that JA made this up in some way since other people thought Nancy would be running/exercising then watching the kids.
Hokay....
Then why again was Brad buying a TARP the night before? Supposedly he doesn't know about these painting plans. Kurtz claims the tarp is for Nancy to use when painting (at JA's house). Nancy wasn't painting at her own house. She didn't need a tarp. All supplies had already been purchased by JA.
Well you can't have it both ways...
Did Brad buy the tarp for Nancy or not? (NOT).
Did Brad know Nancy had plans to paint at JA's house? (I suspect he did not).
Was Brad okay with Nancy painting over at JA's house the few days before to earn some money? (He was NOT! In fact he refused to give her the weekly allowance because she already had earned some money).
Then why again would Brad purchase a tarp for Nancy for a painting job he didn't KNOW about and wouldn't approve of if he had known? (ummm....)
LIES LIES LIES by the defense.
Who? So GPS could track him, but he was smart enough to rig phone calls ... not smart enough to disable GPS? Or smart enough to re-route GPS?
So first he says that no one knew that she had painting plans that day so she went for a run (although this doesn't completely conflict with when she left ... 7 and expected back ...8:30?), and then his lawyer announces during opening arguments that the unused tarp was bought for her to paint? Sounds desperate. At the same time, her friends were under the imrpession that it was a secret - yet her husband knew?
I don't see why he wouldn't be okay with Nancy earning a bit ... and I can see why he would deduct that earning from her allowance (they were in divorce, finances were separate) - perhaps hoping that she was finally contributing financially.
Sounds good to me -- I think I am not doing a lot or hard-core reality-checking myself.... I'm not up on the ISP copy part (I'm a retired mainframe programmer/analyst of 30+ years) but your scenario is much like what I imagined.... NC's a bit tipsy and she has just "had-it" with BC and his near-adolescent (read "sociopathic" IMO) cruelty and superiority and gas-buying, etc., etc., and things just take off from there. It had to have gotten started somehow like you present, IMO....This is a fresh thought and has not been vetted by too much reality checking, but I wonder if it might have played out like this.
NC Gets home and BC said something about getting the tarp for her painting Saturday (I know, unlikely, but stick with me a second). She has not told him anything about painting on Saturday, thereby discovering that he has been getting illicit copies of her e-mail. She is tipsy and already ticked off, so she lays into him, or plans to take the kids and leave then, but he - stops her.
I have never met BC, but what I see and some of the things I have picked up (Blog, etc.) seem to indicate that he feels pretty superior and thinks he is smarter than the average. He might be, but I can also see where this could cause a boiling rage when things are not going according to plan. An example, I know how to get the ISP to send a secret copy of mail from one account to another. There is no trace on the local computer, because the mail server is creating the copy. He had this in place for several months, and I am sure was laughing up his sleeve about how he was pulling one over on NC, if he slipped and said something, she would have been pretty ticked.