April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[ncsu95]

Dont mean to be picky..but the youngest was NOT in Preschool (only 2)..only the eldest ..so She had the youngest either with her or with Brad..So dont think she had that much free time...
to caboodle about...:waitasec:

The defense witness earlier this week was talking about the 2 year old being in one of the schools. There was discussion on here about a 2 year old not being able to say what was going on at home.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Well said. I agree with all of it, except the highlighted part. I thought Kurtz with JW was brilliant. All the clues of tampering were brought out, even with having to go around the forensic specialist stuff. I have no doubt Google will bring it all to light (if it's true they are having them as a witness).

People here who know me, know I do not work for the defense, lol.

Well of course YOU don't work for the defense YOU are BC's Mom! :floorlaugh:

I'm not sure if I work for the defense team or not.

 

[sunshine05]

And what evidence do they have to show who made that call?

They don't *have* to. It is up to the state to prove she didn't. They can't. But everything indicates she did. If there mysteriously were no phone records backing the call up, that would be a different story.

 

[cody100]

Does anyone besides me remember that 'Nancy did want a divorce'. 'She was supposed to go to Toronto.' 'Brad said she and the girls could go to Toronto, until he snooped into her private attorney client email and found the first draft of the separation agreement.'

I remember everything about that except the snooping into her private email. I remember that she sent him a copy of the agreement. But, I could be wrong on that part.

 

[ncsu95]

I don't know that it's so much to convince people on boards. I'm not about conspiracy theories either - but I do believe it is possible to try to gauge public opinion and whether to go with this witness or that witness and where we should make our biggest push. How does the public feel if we trend this way or trend that way in our presentation. That's just my thoughts on it. Gritguy was very nice in explaining to me that perhaps the defense team already has their horse in the stream and can't exactly change up if they find public opinion is against their tactics. I appreciated his experience and knowledge - but he also said he practiced in a time where the internet was not what it is today. I still believe it's *possible* that defense teams plant someone - a legal aid, an intern, a family member - to gauge public opinion and get a feel for how their case is going. JMO - and MO only. I think anything is possible in this day and age.

And you don't think the prosecution does that? I imagine, and would expect, both teams to at least monitor a site like this. There has been questions asked in this trial from both sides that are a direct result of discussion from this site (in my opinion).

 

[sunshine05]

Well of course YOU don't work for the defense YOU are BC's Mom! :floorlaugh:

I'm not sure if I work for the defense team or not.

LOL!!!

I was hoping no one would notice me posting here all day while sitting in court.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The defense witness earlier this week was talking about the 2 year old being in one of the schools. There was discussion on here about a 2 year old not being able to say what was going on at home.

I think she was in a one week summer program. Actually it spread over two weeks but it was only 3 half day sessions.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Any of them can lead to reasonable doubt.

Thank You. And all the defense needs is reasonable doubt. They do not have to prove that someone else killed NC. They simply have to show doubt that BC was the killer. That is what our legal system is about. I just hope the jury remembers "reasonable doubt" when they decide on BC's fate. I honestly think they will at this point and I think even more so as the defense continues to present their case

 

[ncsu95]

Madeleine, it seems that no one has any idea who murdered Nancy. No one thinks it's important to determine that since that was CPD's job. But it sure as hell wasn't BC. That's the ONLY thing that matters.

For fence sitters, that would true. Again, not sure why the defense has to solve the case in order to provide reasonable doubt that BC didn't do it.

 

[cody100]

LOL!!!

I was hoping no one would notice me posting here all day while sitting in court.

Better not let the judge see you.

 

[gracielee]

No, it's because he thinks she's hot.

That would make him very similar to those women we talked about the other day, the ones who get involved with prisoners. :waitasec:

 

[Cheyenne130]

They don't *have* to. It is up to the state to prove she didn't. They can't. But everything indicates she did. If there mysteriously were no phone records backing the call up, that would be a different story.

There is everything to indicate that a call was made from the home phone to his cell phone. There is no evidence other than Brad's statement that the call came from Nancy.

 

[less0305]

Yup, he should have stopped off and bought himself a lottery ticket that Saturday afternoon too. Abrha cadabra, and your whole *problem* magically disappears. Poof, nancy is gone and so is that pesky separation agreement. Thank goodness none of the wives who actually were in good marriages decided to go jogging that morning, 'eh?

And you know, Gracie, I've been thinking about it some more - and being the control freak that he was, even if he believed or had knowledge that the separation agreement was just a first draft, I don't think BC wanted to give up control of just how much he believed NC should receive after separation. I don't think he liked one bit that the control would be taken over by the State of N.C. Even if the terms were less than what was asked for in the agreement, it still meant somebody else was telling him just what he would be prescribed to pay. I honestly believe BC thought when he admitted the affair and told her he was in love with HM that she would just "lay down and die" and skulk back to Canada to her family and be done with him. That didn't happen. All of a sudden NC grew a backbone and called an attorney and wasn't just going to accept HIS terms. Once the state was going to be involved, he wasn't going to have any of that. He knew he couldn't control the state like he could NC.

I'd like to ask your and Madeline's opinion of another issue I've been kicking around - do you think it's possible that NC might have suggested or threatened to sue HM for alienation or do you think her attorney may have mentioned it in any communications with NC that BC stole - and that sent BC over the edge?

 

[ncsu95]

LOL!!!

I was hoping no one would notice me posting here all day while sitting in court.

Better not let Gessner see you. He banned all electronics.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I don't know that it's so much to convince people on boards. I'm not about conspiracy theories either - but I do believe it is possible to try to gauge public opinion and whether to go with this witness or that witness and where we should make our biggest push. How does the public feel if we trend this way or trend that way in our presentation. That's just my thoughts on it. Gritguy was very nice in explaining to me that perhaps the defense team already has their horse in the stream and can't exactly change up if they find public opinion is against their tactics. I appreciated his experience and knowledge - but he also said he practiced in a time where the internet was not what it is today. I still believe it's *possible* that defense teams plant someone - a legal aid, an intern, a family member - to gauge public opinion and get a feel for how their case is going. JMO - and MO only. I think anything is possible in this day and age.

Just thought I would add..that Brad himself was surfing Websleuth when nancy was missing..So whomever is lurking or posting no doubt had directive to follow here...I am sure he got the drift initially..as all Good sleuthers do..give both sides of equation..however as time went on..and lies got exposed and I cant help but think for somer reason Brad et al~` want to impress you awesome group of peeps!! This site really is a cross section of normal peeps..so why not be "The devil's advocate"..and I also wonder if that isnt why JWARD felt compelled to post here the night after he testified...

:waitasec:

 

[ncsu95]

I think she was in a one week summer program. Actually it spread over two weeks but it was only 3 half day sessions.

Thanks. That makes sense. It doesn't mean one of her friends couldn't watch the younger one.

I DO NOT THINK SHE WAS INVOLVED WITH ANYONE (yelling it so there is no confusion as to my thoughts on it). I'm simply saying she had the opportunity to if she had wanted to.

 

[Madeleine74]

So, if the jury doesn't come back with a guilty verdict, will they be required to provide evidence of who they think did it? No, they will not. If they don't believe the State made their case that Brad did it, that's all they need to base it on.

Of course not. But the jury can believe he's guilty and yet the state didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That alone gets a not guilty verdict, which does not mean, btw, the person is factually innocent.

There are posters here who have proclaimed that Brad Cooper is 100% innocent. I am asking which theory they subscribe to in order to determine factual innocence (versus those who don't know if he is or think maybe he isn't but they aren't past reasonable doubt).

 

[momof7]

And you don't think the prosecution does that? I imagine, and would expect, both teams to at least monitor a site like this. There has been questions asked in this trial from both sides that are a direct result of discussion from this site (in my opinion).

I honestly felt this way when Pros was discussing the 'job hopping' with JW. We had a pages long discussion on they why he would have had so many, could it be something not so sterling etc. We also discussed his website for 500k/1m company with a website under construction. But, then again, common sense would dictate these questions would be asked. Credibility.

I would hestiate, though, to point a finger at any one poster as being a mole or spy. Maybe they got lucky, and maybe they didn't.

Kelly

 

[sunshine05]

There is everything to indicate that a call was made from the home phone to his cell phone. There is no evidence other than Brad's statement that the call came from Nancy.

Then you are asking the jury to believe there was an accomplice. The state hasn't even suggested that. Do you think the jury is going to just make that leap? I don't.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I think she was in a one week summer program. Actually it spread over two weeks but it was only 3 half day sessions.

you are correct, the 2 yr old was attending the summer camp program at the preschool