April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[PokerPlayer]

Ducks, sticks, earrings and necklaces prove nothing. We now know the ducks were not destroyed in a fight, JA was wrong about seeing them the day before. As far as the necklace goes, who wears an expensive diamond necklace to a pool with kids hanging all over them, I have seen pictures of the necklace it was not on a strong chain, could have easily broken in the pool and would have been gone forever, NC had enough smarts to know this, it is not on the HT picture, but the bathing suit appears on under the cover up; therefore, it is logical to conclude that she had been at the pool without the necklace, so HP is mistaken. Now, let's talk about the earrings she never took off. Have any of you ever tried to sleep in post earrings? I have and I can tell you that you will take them off at night as the posts will stick in the back of your neck if you roll onto your side. My friends will also tell you I always wear my diamond earrings and they would be correct, but they are not with me at night when I take them off so I can sleep, I imagine NC did the same thing, also showering with them in is a dangerous bet as your hair can tangle in them and they can come off. So it makes sense that she always wore them and may even have jogged in them or the necklace, but no doubt she took them off from time to time. So the earrings, the necklace or lack thereof, does not indicate anything to anyone. No one can know what anyone else does when they are alone. As far as the faint line around her neck, it is most likely there from the necklace when she wore it in the sun and the area it covered could not tan, IMO that is what you are seeing in the HT video, not the necklace. We do not have one piece of forensic evidence that ties BC to the crime. There are several others with motive, means and opportunity, BC is not alone in this. The google search means nothing as the time stamps may or may not be invalid. Don't get me wrong I want NC's killer caught and brought to justice, I am just not sure we have the right person. If the CPD made mistakes in the investigation and they did admittedly so, no one is perfect, how then is it that BC can commit this crime and not leave a trace, he would have made a mistake as well. People keep bringing up the running shoes, if you go back and read the statements the running shoes even though they were two left shoes were not NC's size, her other pair of running shoes have never been recovered, so the Det. thinks she returned them, well there is nothing to indicate she did so. Lots of things are in boxes, maybe if we look, we will find the two right shoes, who knows. Absolutely no proof of spoofed calls, again having the ability does not mean it happened and it would leave a trace somewhere on something, so far nothing has proven this did happen only that it did not. I am prefectly ready to eat crow if Cisco produces a router showing he made this spoof call and if they do I will gladly and readily admit he is guilty. At this point with nothing to go on, I am going to change my opinion get off of the fence and say, I believe Brad Cooper is not guilty.

Finally making my first post... Thanks to Just Thinking for this comment, it pretty much sums up my thoughts of this trial. Only one exception, I do sleep in my diamond post earrings, every night and they haven't stabbed me in the head yet, thankfully. I do however take them out to play sports, so even I sometimes remove the earrings that I "always" wear.
I've been following this trial from the beginning, simply because I graduated high school with Brad. We were not friends then (different social circles), but I certainly knew who he was. I was shocked that anyone I'd ever "known" would be on trial for 1st degree murder, so that's why I've been following the trial.
I began by believing that he was guilty, just from what had been reported in the news, even all the way up here in Canada. As I've watched the trial, I have swung around to the not guilty side and now, in fact, I believe that he's innocent. MOO
I'll also admit that I was surprised to learn that the whole "take off your shoes at the door" was a Canadian trait - didn't know that. Next time I'm in the US, I'll ask before doffing my shoes at someone's door.
This is my first experience watching any trial, American or Canadian. I understand that there are rules about what can be introduced to the jury and when, but I felt after watching the voir dire of GM that ANY evidence related to the IBM thinkpad should be disallowed due to improper handling of evidence. Perhaps others feel differently, it's MOO.
:seeya:

 

[gracielee]

I don't consider it baby sitting. Just like I'm not baby sitting my kids this weekend or during any of the multitude of activities my wife does on her own each week.

LOL, you passed! :great: A couple years ago, at a family cook-out, one of my sons in law asked the other to do something the next day. Second SIL said 'sure, that sounds like fun' to which one of my daughters piped in "david, you are watching the kids tomorrow, remember, I'm doing such and such." To which david replied, in a very down-trodden voice like a little kid who's mom told 'em 'no, you can't go'. "I have to baby-sit tomorrow." To which my daughter piped back in..."David, watching ones own children is referred to as PARENTING, not baby-sitting!"

I was reminded of that whole 'TO DO' by all these childcare discussions. :floorlaugh: Because the rest of our family, other sisters, hubby & me, etc., were rolling on the floor laughing at this back & forth we were observing at the time.

 

[Danielle59]

It seems to me, this is their way of handling the pain. Only those who go through a trauma can enter into such place. Those effected by horrific things often cope using humor and sarcasm. Outsiders often label it odd or even insensitive.

Yet many, including on this board, what to criticize BC for not acting exactly how they thought he shoud after NC became missing that morning.

 

[NCEast]

Finally making my first post... Thanks to Just Thinking for this comment, it pretty much sums up my thoughts of this trial. Only one exception, I do sleep in my diamond post earrings, every night and they haven't stabbed me in the head yet, thankfully. I do however take them out to play sports, so even I sometimes remove the earrings that I "always" wear.
I've been following this trial from the beginning, simply because I graduated high school with Brad. We were not friends then (different social circles), but I certainly knew who he was. I was shocked that anyone I'd ever "known" would be on trial for 1st degree murder, so that's why I've been following the trial.
I began by believing that he was guilty, just from what had been reported in the news, even all the way up here in Canada. As I've watched the trial, I have swung around to the not guilty side and now, in fact, I believe that he's innocent. MOO
I'll also admit that I was surprised to learn that the whole "take off your shoes at the door" was a Canadian trait - didn't know that. Next time I'm in the US, I'll ask before doffing my shoes at someone's door.
This is my first experience watching any trial, American or Canadian. I understand that there are rules about what can be introduced to the jury and when, but I felt after watching the voir dire of GM that ANY evidence related to the IBM thinkpad should be disallowed due to improper handling of evidence. Perhaps others feel differently, it's MOO.
:seeya:

Welcome to WebSleuths!
It's always nice to have Canadians among us.

 

[BrownRice]

They were boxed by Nancy.
The ducks mean nothing to the case.
All it means is the struggle did not effect them...so what?

The ducks do NOT mean nothing to the case for me. JA was insistent they were missing from the house AFTER NC went running. Obviously they were not. Many other of NC's friends were INSISTENT about things. These INSISTENT statements have been used by the state to help prove their case. And they are incorrect.

The ducks themselves mean nothing. Their significance however is important.

 

[Danielle59]

There are no murders showing for 2006, first page with stats that came back, several other sites are showing 0 for murder as well for various years. Cary is shown as the 5th most safe city in the US on another page....date not given.
This 'safe' reputation is why the CPD was so quick to jump on the spouse, which is understandable.

This is what many of us have been saying, but I do not think it is understandble at all, I find it offensive.

 

[cody100]

I took it to mean a jewelry box.

That is what I thought as well. In any case, it was in the foyer according to BC's mom. She took it and put it in her drawer under sweaters for safe keeping.

 

[gracielee]

Sexual assault was not ruled out, and was a possibility. Just because they did not find bodily fluids does not mean an assault did not take place. And there was evidence of her being defensive, as they find stuff under her fingernails, they just could not get usable DNA evidence.

Random killers usually do transport the victims away from the scene of the abduction to a quiet place. That's one reason why people are ALWAYS told that its better to run and scream than to allow someone to take you to another location, even if the abductor has a weapon. And an ideal location to take someone would be where no one would hear: an area exactly where she was found!

My understanding from the ME's report was there was no bug infestation in the genital area, therefore there were none of the otherwise *expected* bruises and abrasions involved in a forced sexual attack. My determination had nothing what so ever to do with body fluids from a sexual assault, and had everything to do with the lack of any sort of wounds/injuries/abrasions/breaks in the skin, allowing bugs to enter and set up shop, so to speak.

Random sexual killers often times transport their victims to a quiet place. Random killers, those involved in attacks along jogging paths, 'rarely' take their victims anywhere else. 'Bike Path Rapist', even Chandra Levy. It's too difficult to drag a victim off a path and to a vehicle. Yes, people like the Green River Killer, perps who pick up their victim to take them some place else, usually pick up those victims at or near their VEHICLE, to ease their ability to transport.

 

[NCEast]

This is what many of us have been saying, but I do not think it is understandble at all, I find it offensive.

Offensive? When it's standard protocol that the spouse of a murder victim is always the first person LE investigates? That's the course of an investigation--to either rule them in or out. I'm sure you know that but I don't understand how it's offensive.
pat

 

[PokerPlayer]

Welcome to WebSleuths!
It's always nice to have Canadians among us.

Thanks very much! I've been feeling very ignorant of American law and procedures, believe me, but I'm trying my best to follow what's gone on in the court room!
:great:

 

[NCEast]

Thanks very much! I've been feeling very ignorant of American law and procedures, believe me, but I'm trying my best to follow what's gone on in the court room!
:great:

This case may not be the best one for you to learn American Law from. It's certainly had its share of twists and turns.
The best thing about American law is that the judge and attorneys don't wear white wigs

 

[ncsu95]

What struggle? There was no evidence of a struggle. It would seem to me that if there was a struggle in that small foyer there would have to be marks on the wall where the table hit the wall or scratches on the floor. There has been no evidence presented to indicate there was a struggle. The so called struggle was just something the CPD & prosecution dreamed up. The only notion they had to base this struggle theory on was the missing ducks that we now know were in fact not missing. Ergo there was no struggle. You're right the ducks mean nothing to the trial -- well at least not from the states point of view except for the fact that they make their witnesses look like liars?

Also, the detectives said they had no idea where in the house the murder took place.

 

[ncsu95]

Finally making my first post... Thanks to Just Thinking for this comment, it pretty much sums up my thoughts of this trial. Only one exception, I do sleep in my diamond post earrings, every night and they haven't stabbed me in the head yet, thankfully. I do however take them out to play sports, so even I sometimes remove the earrings that I "always" wear.
I've been following this trial from the beginning, simply because I graduated high school with Brad. We were not friends then (different social circles), but I certainly knew who he was. I was shocked that anyone I'd ever "known" would be on trial for 1st degree murder, so that's why I've been following the trial.
I began by believing that he was guilty, just from what had been reported in the news, even all the way up here in Canada. As I've watched the trial, I have swung around to the not guilty side and now, in fact, I believe that he's innocent. MOO
I'll also admit that I was surprised to learn that the whole "take off your shoes at the door" was a Canadian trait - didn't know that. Next time I'm in the US, I'll ask before doffing my shoes at someone's door.
This is my first experience watching any trial, American or Canadian. I understand that there are rules about what can be introduced to the jury and when, but I felt after watching the voir dire of GM that ANY evidence related to the IBM thinkpad should be disallowed due to improper handling of evidence. Perhaps others feel differently, it's MOO.
:seeya:

:wagon:

 

[momof7]

My understanding from the ME's report was there was no bug infestation in the genital area, therefore there were none of the otherwise *expected* bruises and abrasions involved in a forced sexual attack. My determination had nothing what so ever to do with body fluids from a sexual assault, and had everything to do with the lack of any sort of wounds/injuries/abrasions/breaks in the skin, allowing bugs to enter and set up shop, so to speak.

Random sexual killers often times transport their victims to a quiet place. Random killers, those involved in attacks along jogging paths, 'rarely' take their victims anywhere else. 'Bike Path Rapist', even Chandra Levy. It's too difficult to drag a victim off a path and to a vehicle. Yes, people like the Green River Killer, perps who pick up their victim to take them some place else, usually pick up those victims at or near their VEHICLE, to ease their ability to transport.

The autopsy report says 'extensive infestation in the genitalia area'. Page 1. Did he tesitfy to something different or am interpreting the report incorrectly.

Kelly

 

[Danielle59]

I think Brad thought that if he let his wife move to Canada with the girls..that would be enough for her. I don't think he thought he would actually have to support them once they were gone. Had he not been reading her emails ..he wouldn't have seen the draft copy of the separation agreement

Go back and look at the documents, she forwarded in email to his work account about three days after she received it. Why would she have it written up if she was not going to share it with him?

 

[Shadow722]

This case now hinges on the "alleged" 6:40 AM phone call. I think most posters can agree that if proof exists that BC made a 6:40 AM spoofed call, logically therefore he killed NC, and not someone else.

It now rests on the state to prove not only that BC was in possession of the equipment to make a spoofed call @ 6:40 AM, but that he actually made the call.

I say this because there are a number of problems with the 6:40 AM call, which I will try and outline below:

First, if BC made the 6:40 call, then it was his third spoofed call, not his first, but rather his third spoofed call of the day.

We have testimony that BC called his own cell from the house phone because he had misplaced it. This was the "proof of spoof concept" search. Since BC of course lies about everything (according to the BDI theories), this has to be a lie also.

Then he goes to HT to buy Milk on HT Trip one. During this period there was a "failed" spoofed call. I do not know why it failed, but it did. This is what necessitated the second trip to HT to establish the alibi that NC was alive.

Thus we have the third spoofed call, @ 6:40. If the second call did not fail, we would not have had two HT trips just one trip.

Of course the ONLY other reason for two HT trips, was that NC was still alive, and actually sent BC twice.

I'll have more on the 6:40 AM call later, but the above is a good piece of evidence that Sleuthers can really chew over.

Really other than a failed spoof or NC being alive why did BC make two trips to HT? Ponder that one please.

 

[Danielle59]

Why did the ducks end up at the Lawyers office? They could have been purchased again? The lawyer they were given to (for payment?) should have known their importance and could have said something a month ago. The ducks were brought in for dramatics

They looked like pretty unique ducks. If they were purchased again, and the custody attorney is being accused of lying about how she obtained them the Prosecution will have to prove that. Pretty big accusation against the custody attorney. The Prosecution was made aware of the ducks a month ago as soon as it was realized the custody attorney had them. No one knew the Prosecution was going to bring up the ducks in court.

The ducks were brought in to court to rebut the Prosecution's case.

Are you watching the trial?

 

[phillygirl]

Finally making my first post... Thanks to Just Thinking for this comment, it pretty much sums up my thoughts of this trial. Only one exception, I do sleep in my diamond post earrings, every night and they haven't stabbed me in the head yet, thankfully. I do however take them out to play sports, so even I sometimes remove the earrings that I "always" wear.
I've been following this trial from the beginning, simply because I graduated high school with Brad. We were not friends then (different social circles), but I certainly knew who he was. I was shocked that anyone I'd ever "known" would be on trial for 1st degree murder, so that's why I've been following the trial.
I began by believing that he was guilty, just from what had been reported in the news, even all the way up here in Canada. As I've watched the trial, I have swung around to the not guilty side and now, in fact, I believe that he's innocent. MOO
I'll also admit that I was surprised to learn that the whole "take off your shoes at the door" was a Canadian trait - didn't know that. Next time I'm in the US, I'll ask before doffing my shoes at someone's door.
This is my first experience watching any trial, American or Canadian. I understand that there are rules about what can be introduced to the jury and when, but I felt after watching the voir dire of GM that ANY evidence related to the IBM thinkpad should be disallowed due to improper handling of evidence. Perhaps others feel differently, it's MOO.
:seeya:

I am not Canadian and I expect everyone (in my family and children's friends-I would not require grownups to remove their shoes!) to leave their shoes at the door, so I don't think this is a Canadian thing exclusively. But I can tell you, with a family of four, there are so many shoes out in the garage that I will many times just wear whatever shoes I can find two of quickly. I thought too much was made of the location of the shoes. Photos of actual evidence would have been much more helpful, but alas, there are none.

 

[phillygirl]

Offensive? When it's standard protocol that the spouse of a murder victim is always the first person LE investigates? That's the course of an investigation--to either rule them in or out. I'm sure you know that but I don't understand how it's offensive.
pat

But what did the CPD do to rule him out?

 

[RoughlyCollie]

Also, the detectives said they had no idea where in the house the murder took place.

I haven't heard any evidence that the murder took place in the house.