Because Brad said Nancy called him from home - doesn't mean for certain the call generated from the landline. LE already knows this answer - a check of Nancy's cell phone itself might list it and definitely records could answer the question quickly.
Right. Here's how I have it:
If the landline records show that the home phone called his mobile, then it would seem to prove nothing definitively (either he's telling the truth, and she did call, OR... it was faked (as others have said, faking is (relatively) easy).
If her mobile records show that her mobile phone called his mobile, then it also would seem to prove nothing definitively (either he's telling the truth (he could say his affidavit statement
meant she was @ home, not necessarily using the landline), OR,... it was faked (not so sure how easy it is to fake the mobile-to-mobile, given tower triangulation, etc, but perhaps it's possible too...)
In any case, if the premise is that BC
isn't telling the truth, that implies that he took the time and effort to fake one form of the calls (whichever one is in the records).
My thought is that this would seem a real stretch in a crime-of-passion scenario, given the overhead. It just doesn't pass the "bang for the buck" test. [ It would seem almost ridiculous to assume that BC would waste his time working on something that he would surely know wouldn't prove anything anyway... ]
The other option of course is that
neither the mobile phone records, or the landline records show that any calls were made. That would seem unlikely, given BC's attorneys are subpoenaing the information, and given that would directly contradict the statements in his affidavit. If this is the scenario, then nothing was "faked", and he just (irrationally) made up the story in his sworn affidavit as a measure of desperation. (Seems unlikely, but who knows).
