1394 users online (264 members and 1130 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 248
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914

    Post verdict discussion of evidence

    Moderators - is it okay if I start a new thread to discuss some remaining questions regarding this case? ( If you need to delete this I will understand.)

    Since the alleged spoofed call was such an important part of his alibi....he knew he would be videotaped, he knew his receipts would be checked...why buy green juice? IF he was doing the HT trips only to provide proof that he was out and received that 6:40 call from NC, why not really make it believable and pick up apple juice for the kids? Remember, IF he is the murderer, the entire purpose of these trips was ALIBI.

    Cummings pointed out that he picked up the green juice because he was thirsty, but that makes no sense. He just murdered someone and this trip is his alibi story. He can't get it wrong, he knew he would be on camera.

    That's another thing that points to innocence, imo. He wouldn't have bought green juice for himself if he was doing this for "show". Why go to all that trouble to spoof a call and make a mistake of buying something for himself when NC just called to tell him to get juice for the kids?

    And I'm not even suggesting that B didn't drink green juice, just why not make it really convincing by picking up kid-typical juice? He was acting natural because he didn't commit the crime.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    752
    Good idea for a thread! I can't seem to let this thing go yet. Know what I can't get past? Nancy's cell phone. Not only the awesome wiping job done on it, but the fact that they tossed the cell phone of a missing/murdered person in a desk and didn't bother with it for what, 10 days? This makes sense?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by lib's mom View Post
    Good idea for a thread! I can't seem to let this thing go yet. Know what I can't get past? Nancy's cell phone. Not only the awesome wiping job done on it, but the fact that they tossed the cell phone of a missing/murdered person in a desk and didn't bother with it for what, 10 days? This makes sense?
    I know. And the interview with HP, Dismukes says "we got what we needed from that phone". What did that mean???

    I believe Raleigh PD would have been on that phone on 7/12 to see if it may help find her. It is so unbelievable to just let it sit there!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    I didn't realize until today that they didn't have a search warrant for his network equipment until October. Same for the "missing shoes". Why did they wait so long?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13
    The post verdict reaction (by the Cary police and town officials) was a big disappointment. It looks to me like they took away precisely the wrong lesson from this case .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by nctekguy View Post
    The post verdict reaction (by the Cary police and town officials) was a big disappointment. It looks to me like they took away precisely the wrong lesson from this case .
    In every trial it's easy to play monday morning quarterback and analyze the manner in which the police handled the investigation. It's not unusual to be able to find one or two things that the police should have done differently. But the number of things that the Cary police did wrong in this case is absolutely shocking.

    What is really bad is that the town of Cary and the head of the town police seem to think that the verdict completely vindicated them and showed that they did an excellent job. But it didn't.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Listening to Det. Daniels testimony. 15 people called in and said they saw someone who they thought could be Nancy. 15!!!!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    Listening to Det. Daniels testimony. 15 people called in and said they saw someone who they thought could be Nancy. 15!!!!
    Not only that but the stomach contents dont match the timeline. When I bring this up to people the answer is "Well maybe she threw up." There's no evidence she threw up. Maybe aliens came and pumped her stomach too.

    You can explain away all the evidence with "Well maybe this happened..." but its not the jury's job to formulate their own theory. The prosecution also threw out tons of speculation and just hoped some of it stuck which it apparently did.

    So......

    1 - Spoofed call no one can prove was spoofed or even how he could have spoofed it for that long of a duration.

    2 - Stomach contents which line up with the call being real and her going running. "Maybe she threw up".. okay, where and why did no one find a trace of physical evidence to support that?

    3 - Multiple people thought they saw her.

    I still think she got jumped while running either by someone she knew or the van occupants and just because there havent been any more incidents in Cary means nothing, if it was a random act. If I killed someone and someone else was taking the fall for it, I sure wouldnt be out killing someone else to pull the suspicion away from whoever is on trial for it.

    Its just hard to believe this guy planned the perfect crime and then completely botched it in the 11th hour but managed to cover himself forensically in every manner possible.

    Thats pretty hard to get around.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North of 49th Parallel
    Posts
    3,989
    I have mentioned this many times throughout the Trial, but for some reason people keep relying on the stomach contents of Nancy to suggest she MUST have been alive at 7AM to go jogging...However, It is understood that the stomach digests and empties between 4-6 hours of eating...and since Nancy was at this dinner party (which she took ribs) about 630PM July 11th, She no doubt had her meal fairly early in the evening....so do the math I guess.. Food is one thing, however fluid or beverages consumed is entirely another as she was seen drinking up and until close to going home...

    Heres the link to Stomach Contents and utilizing it to TOD~~
    http://myweb.dal.ca/jvandomm/forensi...ntanatomy.html

    Time since death can be approximated by the state of digestion of the stomach contents. It normally takes at least a couple of hours for food to pass from the stomach to the small intestine; a meal still largely in the stomach implies death shortly after eating, while an empty or nearly-empty stomach suggests a longer time period between eating and death (Batten, 1995). However, there are numerous mitigating factors to take into account: the extent to which the food had been chewed, the amount of fat and protein present, physical activity undertaken by the victim prior to death, mood of the victim, physiological variation from person to person. All these factors affect the rate at which food passes through the digestive tract. Pathologists are generally hesitant to base a precise time of death on the evidence of stomach contents alone.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Madflava View Post
    Not only that but the stomach contents dont match the timeline. When I bring this up to people the answer is "Well maybe she threw up." There's no evidence she threw up. Maybe aliens came and pumped her stomach too.

    You can explain away all the evidence with "Well maybe this happened..." but its not the jury's job to formulate their own theory. The prosecution also threw out tons of speculation and just hoped some of it stuck which it apparently did.

    So......

    1 - Spoofed call no one can prove was spoofed or even how he could have spoofed it for that long of a duration.

    2 - Stomach contents which line up with the call being real and her going running. "Maybe she threw up".. okay, where and why did no one find a trace of physical evidence to support that?

    3 - Multiple people thought they saw her.

    I still think she got jumped while running either by someone she knew or the van occupants and just because there havent been any more incidents in Cary means nothing, if it was a random act. If I killed someone and someone else was taking the fall for it, I sure wouldnt be out killing someone else to pull the suspicion away from whoever is on trial for it.

    Its just hard to believe this guy planned the perfect crime and then completely botched it in the 11th hour but managed to cover himself forensically in every manner possible.

    Thats pretty hard to get around.
    Throwing up certainly does not lower ones BAC either.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    As many know, I firmly believe the evidence shows that an innocent man was convicted of murder here. Regardless of that, there are several things I still want to know:

    1. What were the details of NC being seen by the four year old? Who did she say that to? Did she provide any specifics?
    2. What did happen to that missing router? Was it really missing?
    3. Based on the interview with Kurtz afterwards, its clear that BC claimed that he did not do that google search on that day. (He may have several days later). What are the real details of the claims of tampering? What capabilities would be required to do such a tampering? This still isn't really clear. The only thing that has been shown is that there is evidence of tampering.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
    As many know, I firmly believe the evidence shows that an innocent man was convicted of murder here. Regardless of that, there are several things I still want to know:

    1. What were the details of NC being seen by the four year old? Who did she say that to? Did she provide any specifics?
    2. What did happen to that missing router? Was it really missing?
    3. Based on the interview with Kurtz afterwards, its clear that BC claimed that he did not do that google search on that day. (He may have several days later). What are the real details of the claims of tampering? What capabilities would be required to do such a tampering? This still isn't really clear. The only thing that has been shown is that there is evidence of tampering.
    1) The 4 yo child (B) was staying with Clea Morwick that afternoon. CM told police that B told her she saw her mom that morning in black shorts and a white t-shirt. Nothing more ever came of this. Police apparently did not question the child about this or if they did, they never shared the info. with defense.

    2) I don't think we know. This is just my opinion, but if BC needed a specific type of router just to spoof a call, he would have just taken one from the recycled/used area at Cisco and used it and then threw it away. It makes no sense that he would have used the 3825 that he ordered. There is information indicating that another team had possession of it. It is really unclear. But the router in question is for commercial applications, not home.

    3) The details of tampering were invalid time stamps, static files, a deleted watermark and a deleted cookie related to the search were not from 7/11. As far as how the tampering could have occurred, if you go back and watch JW's testimony, he shows ways it could have been done, fairly easily. That's about all I know about it. GM's testimony provided quite a bit of detail about what he suspects was tampering too. (that is the Proof testimony from 4/28 I think).

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    Listening to Det. Daniels testimony. 15 people called in and said they saw someone who they thought could be Nancy. 15!!!!
    But NONE of the callers were the woman anybody saw out there running? She (or they) has/have never surfaced.

    I can't get this trial out of my mind. I am just unsettled.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Another thing that bothers me about this case is how much attention was made about BC's affair, as if that indicated motive. It *could* if the suspect were still involved in the affair and wanted to off the spouse to be with the person they are having an affair with, but that doesn't apply in this case. The affair had nothing at all to do with this case, except that it was the reason for the divorce. I guess I'm just puzzled that the state made this such a large part of the case when it wouldn't have had anything to do with motive. I still fail to see what the motive was.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Williston, VT
    Posts
    97
    Among other things I'd like to know the importance of the ducks and decorative sticks. Why were they mentioned as often as they were?

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


Similar Threads

  1. Discussion between the verdict and sentencing
    By beach in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1484
    Last Post: 09-25-2014, 08:31 PM
  2. JY Guilty of 1st Degree Murder: Post-verdict discussion
    By ynotdivein in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 03-22-2013, 09:17 AM
  3. Penn State Sandusky Trial #12 (GUILTY-post verdict discussion)
    By ynotdivein in forum Jerry Sandusky General Discussion threads
    Replies: 552
    Last Post: 07-19-2012, 06:50 PM
  4. Replies: 408
    Last Post: 07-19-2011, 01:17 AM

Tags for this Thread