927 users online (160 members and 767 guests)  

Websleuths News

Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Why You Believe What You Believe

    Hello everyone, I was trying to reply to the last thread, but it was locked. In some ways I am responding to what I think are important things from the other thread. I haven't been here for a bit because of the atmosphere, and maybe that's why the last thread was locked. If this is offside, the mods will lock it/delete it. My apologies.

    If we are now to stop the debate, so be it and I understand. In case its still allowed, this is what I wanted to say.

    In post 676 in the closed thread, ncsu95, a poster for whom I much respect, said this, in response to one of my posts:

    I said:The amount of spin doctoring the evidence on here is becoming disturbing. Sunshine had me questioning my own memory for a minute and I thought I might be going senile. I know many of you aren't fan's of Madeleine's posts due to her positions but she tends to have the best record recalling the actual evidence.
    ncsu95 responded:No intended offense her, but I would say sunshine05 is more invested (time and knowledge) than anyone on here. She has spent several years documenting this trial in her blog. Even if you don't agree with her conclusions, you have to respect the level of effort she has put into this.

    I had not necessarily connected sunshine to the blog, mostly because I stopped paying attention to it long ago, because I knew she was providing false information, and I forgot about it. Were it a blog which I thought had credible thought, I would have been into it all the way, even if it tended to suggest Brad's innocence. I've always thought she has misstated facts, but I don't really care, in that, anyone can post whatever they want on the internet, its a free medium, and if you find people to agree with you, all the power to you, especially if its your own blog. For the same reason, I ignore it.

    Someone recently pm'd me about this post on that blog, and it caught my attention as a result. Here it is, reproduced:

    “An ex-girlfriend of Brad’s from Calgary came forward and filed an affidavit describing him as emotionally abusive and “mentally cruel.”
    Fact: Actually, Brad left this woman, who was his fiancee at the time, because he himself was physically abused by her. It was soon after that Brad met Nancy. In fact, they used Nancy’s car to remove his possessions and transport them to his apartment.

    Now, contrast to the affidavit of Ms Windsor, or Ms Wilson, as Brad called her in the deposition: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local...3092834786.pdf

    Just because "Ms Wilson" swore this affidavit does not make it true, I will acknowledge that, even though I knew about these things years before the affidavit was sworn, and not just from "Ms Wilson".

    The problem is, sunshine presents as fact something she has no knowledge about. She did not know about Brad or who he was until after the murder was committed. That means, she presents as fact, something she heard from someone else, which was told to her only after this affidavit was filed.

    She has no means to verify this information, nor does she do any, even minor, investigation to determine whether the affidavit is true or not. She rejects solely based upon, what I presume are statements from Brad himself. Maybe his dad, mom, or brother, but I doubt it. If the dad, mom, or brother said it, I can provide information that they had no clue who Brad was dating at the time. Is anyone surprised his own family did not appear at his wedding?

    The dates in sunshine's post are also incorrect when compared to the affidavit. Nancy did not help brad move out with her vehicle, the relationship started much later.

    The reason "Ms Wilson" found out about Brad entering her apartment was, a neighbour saw him exiting the apartment and locking her door, during the day when "Ms Wilson" was at work, about a month or so after they had already separated residences. Brad had given the key back, but must have made a copy to hide what he was doing. His things had removed already. What exactly he was doing in her apartment is open to speculation, he was not found leaving with anything physical.

    My point is, and sure I may be opining on issues which are low-hanging fruit, but there is absolutely no way she can state such a thing as fact. I do not find her postings credible in any way, and have not for a long time... sure, an issue here and there, but that is not how she works, its black and white and she presents as the holder of truth when in fact she's being fed information from a source (or making things up), being one of Brad's family members... not a friend... because he had none... and that's the sad truth.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Let me add some context here. It was... and still is... a concrete, highrise apartment where the doors all flow into the same, singular hallway, and from there, there are elevators. The only door from the apartments lead to the same, shared hallway, which has a fire escape exit on each side, and 3 or 4 (can't remember) elevators in the middle of the hallway.

    The building is configured the same today, a dual high-rise in the west end of downtown calgary, coloured white.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    I'll say again what got me during the trial and what I still can't reconcile are the work related test calls he made that morning. These weren't test calls for a potential spoofed call. They were test calls I do all the time in my job (managing a VoIP based cloud system). It just seems inconceivable that someone that just murdered their wife and was in the process of staging things would take time to do,work related test calls. And if I remember correctly, the content of those calls and voicemails were presented by the prosecution. It was at that point in the trial where I first went to innocent. I swung all the way back to guilty the day the google search was presented. And then I ended up in the middle after that. But I just have a hard time with those work calls. If I was the defense attorney, I would have made a big deal about that since those actions don't mesh with having just killed his wife.

    And I did say you don't have to agree with her conclusions. But she has spent a tremendous amount of time on this case post verdict.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    I'm not sure that the title of this thread is necessarily connected to the substance thus far, however...

    I'm in a similar position to NCSU95. There is evidence that I cannot reconcile with Brad being guilty. Things that just do not make sense.

    With all due respect to Madeleine74 (and I only mention her because she was one of the focal points of the first post), I don't believe she has any greater recollection of the evidence in this case than many of the others here, including sunshine. Even though she does bring a unique aspect due to her presence in the courtroom and her possible connection with Nancy's friends (I don't know this to be true, but assumed based on some of the things she has posted). But your example actually makes the point that I think NCSU95 was trying to make. That is, you should not base credibility simply on someone's knowledge of the case, regardless of what your position is regarding his guilt/innocence.

    Facts are determined by evidence. Just because someone has a lot of knowledge of a case doesn't mean that they can speak from authority. That goes for sunshine, madeleine, me, whoever. You determine facts by presenting evidence and drawing logical conclusions from that evidence.

    On the blog, sunshine may or may not have evidence to support her claims. But if she makes a claim, and it is challenged, then it is up to her to support it through evidence and logic. Her knowledge of the case is irrelevant.