Icing on the Cake

[EnvoyDriver61]

The google maps convinced me of BC's intent and actions. However, there is something else I would have liked to have seen that would have been icing on the cake for being guilty.

It may not be possible, but with the newer washing machines, I'm surprised their isn't a new field of study about forensics that would take apart these machines and determine what was washed and when. They have newer mother boards and while the data stored on them probably isn't very much, I'm sure there are some data they can obtain.

it would have been interesting to determine what loads were done and when.

For example, if it could be determined that whitest whites with stain treatment load was done at 1:00 a.m., 2:30 a.m., 4:00 a.m., i.e., you get the picture: he was washing load after load of stain treatment with the hottest water, etc. Well, that would have been icing on the cake for me.


What would be your icing on the cake to convince you of guilt or innocence, either way?

[less0305]

Originally Posted by EnvoyDriver61

The google maps convinced me of BC's intent and actions. However, there is something else I would have liked to have seen that would have been icing on the cake for being guilty.

It may not be possible, but with the newer washing machines, I'm surprised their isn't a new field of study about forensics that would take apart these machines and determine what was washed and when. They have newer mother boards and while the data stored on them probably isn't very much, I'm sure there are some data they can obtain.

it would have been interesting to determine what loads were done and when.

For example, if it could be determined that whitest whites with stain treatment load was done at 1:00 a.m., 2:30 a.m., 4:00 a.m., i.e., you get the picture: he was washing load after load of stain treatment with the hottest water, etc. Well, that would have been icing on the cake for me.


What would be your icing on the cake to convince you of guilt or innocence, either way?

I already had the icing on the cake. The map zooming in on Fielding was priceless!! But even before that, the icing for me was he never gave Nancy the money for that Friday. There was no need to give it to her - she wasn't going to be needing it. The two right shoes also was a nailer for me. He wanted it to look like she went running, and he grabbed two shoes to dump and mistakenly took two of the same foot that looked similar. He was too much of a hurry and didn't notice. The sports bra being in a rolled under position also was important. Gosh, I could go on and on - the purchase of equipment to make a spoofed call, having the diamond necklace in his possession, laundering the dress (he admitted this to LE), the missing foyer items, BC's missing shoes, the immaculate trunk... it's overwhelming.

[KellyCrash]

Adding on to Less's line of thought...

* no evidence of rape or trauma to that area

*no shoes, no shirt, no pony tail, no hat, no shorts, no socks found on the body, but expensive diamond earrings were left. why would the killer take all of those items, but not the earrings?

*all of Brad's lies

[borndem]

EnvoyDriver61- Since I have followed this case from the beginning because I live in this area, I felt sure he was guilty as early details began to emerge and things just didn't add up. A couple of things did jump out at me, however:

I think the search dog should have been able to pick up her scent instead of going back up the steps of the house -- more than once. If she had indeed left on foot, seems to me the dog would have picked up her scent.

The necklace was a nice little extra -- oh, why didn't he hide it better after he took it off her neck?

He never asked the CPD about how the MP case was going or what he could do to help; he never called her parents to let them know that there might be a problem with her being missing & w/out her daughters; he never told her parents how sorry he was when her body was found, and didn't speak to them for around 4 months; and on, and on.

But I guess the Biggie for me was that he never said he didn't do it. Never once.

[borndem]

Originally Posted by EnvoyDriver61

The google maps convinced me of BC's intent and actions. However, there is something else I would have liked to have seen that would have been icing on the cake for being guilty.

It may not be possible, but with the newer washing machines, I'm surprised their isn't a new field of study about forensics that would take apart these machines and determine what was washed and when. They have newer mother boards and while the data stored on them probably isn't very much, I'm sure there are some data they can obtain.

it would have been interesting to determine what loads were done and when.

For example, if it could be determined that whitest whites with stain treatment load was done at 1:00 a.m., 2:30 a.m., 4:00 a.m., i.e., you get the picture: he was washing load after load of stain treatment with the hottest water, etc. Well, that would have been icing on the cake for me.


What would be your icing on the cake to convince you of guilt or innocence, either way?

BBM

By the way, Envoy -- This "icing" category is a neat idea. Thanks for putting it out here!

[Madeleine74]

The icing for me was definitely the zoomed in images of where he dumped her body the next day, but even without that there was still plenty of 'cake.'

When I went back and listened to the things he said to the detectives (re-listened to their testimony on the stand), it occurred to me that Brad said several things that immediately raised red flags.

Him mentioning up to 6 hours of cleaning and all that laundry. If he had never talked about cleaning there wouldn't have been any focus on it. He shined the light himself...on himself! It was plainly obvious that he did not spend 6 hrs cleaning the house. He also changed his timeline a few times. He claimed to go to HT the first time "between 5:30am and 6am."

The whole game he played with the dress. He made it into a big deal, purposely misleading to buy himself time, then made a bigger deal about it the next day, when he announced he washed it because it had a stain on it. So he washed NC's dress but he couldn't get the color/style correct? Blue/black/orange. An idiot would have known something strange was up with that item of clothing since he went to so much trouble trying to confuse everyone about it. Him doing NC's laundry? Sorry, that's another red flag.

Same with the call history on his phone. Saying he didn't know how to look up the call history was an obvious ploy to buy more time. He apparently had not erased the things he wanted to hide so he throws that excuse out and then, worse, asks a friend how to look up the call history when they are doing the search. One Google search would have netted him the answer, and it turns out it's one of the main icons when one goes to the menu on that phone.

The whole scenario of the littlest one crying for 10 to 15 min (and he claims he was sleeping in the middle of those 2 little beds pushed together) and not waking up the older daughter. Sorry, no way. And it doesn't take 2 parents to get up and tend to a child who wants some milk. Further, they HAD milk in the house. He didn't even try to give any of that to her. It was a story that made no sense. It made no sense because it was a lie. And not a very convincing lie at that.

The way he was dressed that July morning with that pullover jacket. The amount of energy he spent looking at/interacting with his phone, on a Sat morning, before 7am, as seen on the HT video. The flurry of phone calls on a Sat morning, when there was no such activity before. The switching of the shoes, and his missing sneakers from the first visit.

Every phone call from Nancy the day before, even from her house, was on her cell phone. Every single one. Yet on the day she goes missing Brad has her calling him via the 'home' phone. Makes you wonder why the calls that morning were different than her usual pattern.

And the ignoring of multiple police and friends' calls while he claims to be out 'looking' for his missing wife. He ignored every call and text.

The missing router when he claimed to have taken one home, as seen in his own words in an IM chat at work.

His utterance in front of 2 cops that Nancy "always" wore a red & black jogging bra (and that's the one, out of a dozen she had, that her body was found in).

The way the body was found, no running clothes, no shoes, no socks, jog bra rolled under.

His multiple lies in his deposition. His inability to keep straight exactly who was doing laundry and who noticed they were out of detergent (he gave at least 2 different versions, and possibly 3). His huge Freudian slip in his deposition where he says, "we try to PROVE that can't happen..." then realizes what he's said and changes it to "it's not something a customer would want..." when asked if he knew how to initiate a remote call.


Those are just a few things out of many that, when added up, is evidence pointing right to him. I could have voted him guilty on Murder 1 without the Google search. The Google search just showed me his pre-planning and that it was no coincidence her body just happened to end up in that cul-de-sac. The fact he was at work, on a secure network, using a laptop that times out in 10 min if unattended, nails it.

Brad Cooper cooked his own goose. He got caught, he got caught in multiple lies, his stories didn't make sense, his behaviors were unusual enough to be noticed, he mentioned something only the killer would know, and he didn't fool people.

[LAWsy_ME]

Speaking of goose.....This is a teeny tiny part of another painting I did called
Duck, Duck, Goose. This is my icing....I am an artist and I have found great inspiration from following Nancy's story. This is a tribute to.....
the goose looks kind of like a black swan....I saw that movie and it was twisted.

[borndem]

Originally Posted by LAWsy_ME

Speaking of goose.....This is a teeny tiny part of another painting I did called
Duck, Duck, Goose. This is my icing....I am an artist and I have found great inspiration from following Nancy's story. This is a tribute to.....
the goose looks kind of like a black swan....I saw that movie and it was twisted.

Brilliant!! Two ducks which turn out to be the MacGuffin of the case (ask Mr. Hitchcock). A lot of time & energy & burned-out brain cells were spent by the prosecution and by us WSers, too, on those two dayam ducks...

And then the goose to show the slow-cooking of BC's, i.e.

Thanks for sharing it with us, Lawsy -- I love your artistry!

[LAWsy_ME]

Originally Posted by borndem

Brilliant!! Two ducks which turn out to be the MacGuffin of the case (ask Mr. Hitchcock). A lot of time & energy & burned-out brain cells were spent by the prosecution and by us WSers, too, on those two dayam ducks...

And then the goose to show the slow-cooking of BC's, i.e.

Thanks for sharing it with us, Lawsy -- I love your artistry!

YES! Thank you borndem for articulating what is so crystal clear!

[borndem]

Originally Posted by LAWsy_ME

YES! Thank you borndem for articulating what is so crystal clear!

Well, I guess I DID squash whatever subtlety you may have wished to be there , huh?

It's my inner English lit school teacher screaming to come out!! (I never was one, but she does come creeping 'round the corner at times ..) Anyway, forgive, please, I just got a bit taken away by your talent and, yes, subtlety!!!

[LAWsy_ME]

Originally Posted by borndem

Well, I guess I DID squash whatever subtlety you may have wished to be there , huh?

It's my inner English lit school teacher screaming to come out!! (I never was one, but she does come creeping 'round the corner at times ..) Anyway, forgive, please, I just got a bit taken away by your talent and, yes, subtlety!!!

Round and round and round we go, duck, duck, duck, duck, GOOSE. finally hitting the goose on the head, GOTCHA! ya gawl darned bird, who then begins the chase.
Now the GOOSE is running round and round and round ( Belly laugh here....just can't hep myself)

[LAWsy_ME]

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)
Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

From Wikipedia, To spell it out further....

"A MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is "a plot element that catches the viewers' attention or drives the plot of a work of fiction".[1] The defining aspect of a MacGuffin is that the major players in the story are (at least initially) willing to do and sacrifice almost anything to obtain it, regardless of what the MacGuffin actually is. In fact, the specific nature of the MacGuffin may be ambiguous, undefined, generic, left open to interpretation or otherwise completely unimportant to the plot. Common examples are money, victory, glory, survival, a source of power, or a potential threat, or it may simply be something entirely unexplained."

[Madeleine74]

Interesting sidenote:

Watched a bit of the Casey Anthony defense opening yesterday. Guess what the defense claims? < go on, guess>

1. A comprehensive investigation, but ONLY focusing on one person (Casey Anthony)

2. A rush to assume C.A. murdered her daughter, but no evidence to back that up.

3. Evidence moved (namely, alleging the meter reader who found the remains picked them up, hid them somewhere, and relocated them some months later)

4. Evidence (esp that from the car trunk) cannot be trusted.

And that's just on DAY #1.

Sound familiar, folks?

Putting L.E. on trial, everyone else is lying, can't trust the evidence.

Where have we heard this before? Hmmmm....??? Who could it be, who could it be...I just don't know....

[ncsu95]

Originally Posted by Madeleine74

Interesting sidenote:

Watched a bit of the Casey Anthony defense opening yesterday. Guess what the defense claims? < go on, guess>

1. A comprehensive investigation, but ONLY focusing on one person (Casey Anthony)

2. A rush to assume C.A. murdered her daughter, but no evidence to back that up.

3. Evidence moved (namely, alleging the meter reader who found the remains picked them up, hid them somewhere, and relocated them some months later)

4. Evidence (esp that from the car trunk) cannot be trusted.

And that's just on DAY #1.

Sound familiar, folks?

Putting L.E. on trial, everyone else is lying, can't trust the evidence.

Where have we heard this before? Hmmmm....??? Who could it be, who could it be...I just don't know....

The opening statements were nothing like BCs. BCs story has never changed. CAs defense is now saying she drowned in the pool, her dad found the body, and he molested CA which explains her odd behavior. That is the basis of their defense, not the stuff you listed above. Of course, the prosecution put her dad on as the first witness and the defense never questioned him about molesting her or finding the body, etc. He denied all of it during direct. And add to that the defense had no explanation for how the meter reader got the body to be able to move it.

[Madeleine74]

Originally Posted by ncsu95

The opening statements were nothing like BCs. BCs story has never changed. CAs defense is now saying she drowned in the pool, her dad found the body, and he molested CA which explains her odd behavior. That is the basis of their defense, not the stuff you listed above. Of course, the prosecution put her dad on as the first witness and the defense never questioned him about molesting her or finding the body, etc. He denied all of it during direct. And add to that the defense had no explanation for how the meter reader got the body to be able to move it.

Regardless of BC's "story," his defense claimed some universal themes that come up in most defense cases.

My list on the C.A. defense came directly from their statements yesterday. Go back and listen to the defense opening. I'm not talking about the claim of molestation, I'm talking about the things Baez said about L.E., Roy Kronk, & 'magic' science. He used very typical themes to try and paint the picture that everyone decided to go after his client and did not investigate 'what else' was going on that might lead L.E. in a different direction and to a different conclusion. He claimed evidence was moved/altered. I wrote it down as he was talking because he was throwing everything against the wall. He mentioned more things than BC's defense, but he did use some of those sames themes as BC's lawyers.

[borndem]

Originally Posted by Madeleine74

Regardless of BC's "story," his defense claimed some universal themes that come up in most defense cases.

My list on the C.A. defense came directly from their statements yesterday. Go back and listen to the defense opening. I'm not talking about the claim of molestation, I'm talking about the things Baez said about L.E., Roy Kronk, & 'magic' science. He used very typical themes to try and paint the picture that everyone decided to go after his client and did not investigate 'what else' was going on that might lead L.E. in a different direction and to a different conclusion. He claimed evidence was moved/altered. I wrote it down as he was talking because he was throwing everything against the wall. He mentioned more things than BC's defense, but he did use some of those sames themes as BC's lawyers.

Mad74 -- I did not see the state's opening remarks, but I was able to see the defense give their opening. I did get the feeling of, "here we go again" with their remarks about LE and the general incompetence of some of the main characters in the case. But what can one do with such a client? This defense also has a weak case, IMO, and is trying to help a similar client: "a l**** l*** who lies," IMHO.

Now isn't that special?

[Madeleine74]

I had to laugh when I saw this. This, folks, is the way a call history is accessed on the very cell phone BC had, The Samsung BlackJack II ...the phone he "needed help to figure out how to get to his call history/log" before he could show police.

[ncsu95]

The CA jury is a lot different than NCs jury. They just sent a note that they have no issue working on memorial day and actually prefer to.

[Madeleine74]

And what does that have to do with the similar themes raised by the defense team?

I am only talking about defense themes. Not about jury makeup, not defendant's stories.

BTW, this jury is sequestered, thus a long weekend is a waste to them since they are stuck @ a hotel and not with their families @ home.

[ncsu95]

It has nothing to do with your observations.

[LAWsy_ME]

Tribute to Jessica and Nancy
posted again ....because of a teeny tiny <probable pro bono> pixel problem

Disclaimer: (This copy is not true to color or detail because of the digital translation)

Viewing instructions: IT helps if you stand back to view the piece of work...hehehe.

[borndem]

Originally Posted by LAWsy_ME

< regretfully snipped beautiful painting to save room >

Tribute to Jessica and Nancy
posted again ....because of a teeny tiny <probable pro bono> pixel problem

Disclaimer: (This copy is not true to color or detail because of the digital translation)

Viewing instructions: IT helps if you stand back to view the piece of work...hehehe.

Lawsy - Your avatar!!! I knew it!!!

I thought that was a likeness of Nancy and J !!! -- Oh, my, what beauty and feeling and just plain talent in your work -- NC is with us again through it, and is with her good, good friend, J, Do any of Nancy's folks know about this? Are you a part of the Butterfly effort? If not, you must share it with them. (You certainly do not have to answer these questions here.) I am just blown away by the beauty and love in the rendering. I, who can't draw a decent circle or stick-man. Let me stop -- it's just beautiful -- please take pride in this wonderful tribute to them both and to all of the folks that made Nancy happy and who will always love and miss her.

[LAWsy_ME]

Originally Posted by borndem

Lawsy - Your avatar!!! I knew it!!!

I thought that was a likeness of Nancy and J !!! -- Oh, my, what beauty and feeling and just plain talent in your work -- NC is with us again through it, and is with her good, good friend, J, Do any of Nancy's folks know about this? Are you a part of the Butterfly effort? If not, you must share it with them. (You certainly do not have to answer these questions here.) I am just blown away by the beauty and love in the rendering. I, who can't draw a decent circle or stick-man. Let me stop -- it's just beautiful -- please take pride in this wonderful tribute to them both and to all of the folks that made Nancy happy and who will always love and miss her.

Yes! I sent the framed original watercolor to Jess. I did not know them, nor any of the family or butterfly effort, but I wanted to send Jess a thank you, if you will, a real gesture of love. Nancy's spirit is powerful and she has been "in my head" and I have listened to her. I am deeply grateful. Thank you for your kind words, borndem.

See post #57 on the appeal info. (page 3) for the written tribute, which could have been written to any of Nancy's friends and loved ones who took a stand on her behalf. It is with great honor that I participated in this process. Friendship comes in many forms, and I feel I have a friend in Nancy. Being an artist, I accept inspiration however it shows up. It can just be a "feeling", and I listen. I am deeply grateful.

In the beautiful words of Elizabeth Smart, "By lifting those around you, you end up lifting yourself as well."

[borndem]

Originally Posted by LAWsy_ME

Yes! I sent the framed original watercolor to Jess. I did not know them, nor any of the family or butterfly effort, but I wanted to send Jess a thank you, if you will, a real gesture of love. Nancy's spirit is powerful and she has been "in my head" and I have listened to her. I am deeply grateful. Thank you for your kind words, borndem.

See post #57 on the appeal info. (page 3) for the written tribute, which could have been written to any of Nancy's friends and loved ones who took a stand on her behalf. It is with great honor that I participated in this process. Friendship comes in many forms, and I feel I have a friend in Nancy. Being an artist, I accept inspiration however it shows up. It can just be a "feeling", and I listen. I am deeply grateful.

I don't need to look up your verbal tribute -- I remember it & how elegant and eloquent it was.

Yes, sometimes inspiration comes from admiration, empathy, strong dislike, odors (our most evocative sense, I have read), identification, or simply a "feeling" that is impossible or difficult to describe. You draw it; I write about it. In this case, you did both. We thank you.

I am so glad you did pass your work on to J, and I'm sure she was overcome and soon in tears. An original piece of love-art. Awe inspiring, full of wonder, and irreplaceable. Wow.

[LAWsy_ME]

Occasionally, Nancy's name comes up here typed in red.....just for a little while and then disappears...do you see that borndem, or is that another one of those unexplainable events? I see it in posts that are already written, some by me, some by others. by the way, I don't believe in co-inky-dinks...and I'll just say my question to you is rhetorical and need not be answered. Fair enough?