2011.05.04 Verdict Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Based on the TOS, I believe it is. There is a process in there for appealing this. It's different from "On Timeout" which shows up for some users (including me a month or so ago).

LOL, say it ain't so. I don't remember that.
Had I not left here the other night I probably would have been. I really, really have a difficult time with these folks who drop in from nowhere and start arguing.
 
Based on the TOS, I believe it is. There is a process in there for appealing this. It's different from "On Timeout" which shows up for some users (including me a month or so ago).

Yup. My post in the beginning of this thread clarifies my feeling on what this trial is has been like on this forum.
 
Makes sense to me: can picture that - despite my wondering if he ambushed NC as she walked thru the door. I wondered if he'd bought another drop-cloth (earlier - perhaps while NC was on vacation) and used that.

That way he could show "yes, a drop cloth was bought - but look - it's never been used...". He's such a liar that it would be hard to ascertain exactly how he did this unless he told the truth.

And of course ... pigs will fly before that happens ... IMOO

There would of been a record of that 2nd purchase somewhere.
 
I was just going to say most of the house, including the master bedroom where she slept probably wouldn't be how a woman keeps it.

I'm one to talk right now. I have 6 loads of laundry from today sitting on the floor in the playroom. I take a couple of handfuls of laundry upstairs, put it away, and then come back down to the computer. I feel like I'm doing something at least in the form of housekeeping, but it's far from my usual standards!
 
But that would indicate a struggle took place, so there should be defensive wounds.

Not really defensive wounds other than bruises, and the ME stated that there could have been bruises but Nancys' body was too decomposed for him to say definitively. < IIRC
 
BUT, We only have Brad's word on what the children were or were not doing that morning. Not good enough for me. IMO, he had plenty of motive and opportunity. Even an extra special TV table to corral the girls whilst he finished up.

The picture of that big tv on the stand at the door, with just a tiny opening, was another thing that hit me hard. He made sure those little girls were not going to get out of that room until he was ready for them to get out.
 
Who the heck knows what they are thinking. I'm trying my best not to read into anything because it would drive me nuts.

LOL, that's just because you are a 'trial virgin'. :floorlaugh:
 
I'm one to talk right now. I have 6 loads of laundry from today sitting on the floor in the playroom. I take a couple of handfuls of laundry upstairs, put it away, and then come back down to the computer. I feel like I'm doing something at least in the form of housekeeping, but it's far from my usual standards!

It's the thought that counts :great:
 
Yes. I put together a floor plan when the video footage of the house was introduced at trial. It was based on a floor plan that someone else posted of a similar layout a couple of years ago.

cooperfloorplansdraft.jpg

Otto, did you see this post of mine a while back? You have some of the rooms mislabeled:

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6288234&postcount=20
 
Not really defensive wounds other than bruises, and the ME stated that there could have been bruises but Nancys' body was too decomposed for him to say definitively. < IIRC

I'm talking about on Brad.
 
I didnt blame her for anything. She was doing her job and that's her style.

I just said that her agreement with Brad was business as usual for her. Just because they were asking for it doesnt mean they were going to get it and had BC even gone in for an initial consultation with a lawyer or done an ounce of research online, he would have known that.

He did try to obtain an attorney but he had no money.
 
BUT, We only have Brad's word on what the children were or were not doing that morning. Not good enough for me. IMO, he had plenty of motive and opportunity. Even an extra special TV table to corral the girls whilst he finished up.

That was a rather large TV table, more like the kind we normally saw in educational environments 15-20 years ago. I highly doubt that TV setup was done at 4 in the morning.
 
Why would Brad have defensive wounds? :waitasec:

Because if Nancy was alert, I believe she would have fought to save her life. Wasn't that the theory about the so-called scratches on his neck?
 
Not really defensive wounds other than bruises, and the ME stated that there could have been bruises but Nancys' body was too decomposed for him to say definitively. < IIRC

Just wish to add something to your discussion. As HC Provider who worked in trauma and ER's..defensive wounds are more obvious when a weapon is used..ala knife or gun or tire iron, baseball bat etc..however, hand to hand combat doesnt necessarily leave much other than maybe broken nails, or some bruisings..which IF death occurs fairly quickly, even they can be obscured when decomposition advances....

Also, it is unfortunate the redness, or something the detectives noticed on that July 12th interview on Brad wasnt documented with pics or photo's..They may have indicated sign of struggle..however, minor rubbings or scraps could be explained away such as the bandaid on his finger seen... Its all moot tho, because at that point NC was only missing, and fould play wasnt their focus at that point....I'd say, Brad has some horseshoes you know where!!!
 
I understand your line of thinking, and I do respect what you are saying, I only am wondering why AS would be considered money hungry. Some of the requests were certainly out there and would not have been entertained in the slightest. Had Brad gotten an attorney, used his cc to pay for it, his attny would have laughed and sent back something that was far different. And that second installment would look just like hers, just in BC's favor.

So, while I agree some requests over the top, she was doing the job she was hired to do. BC's attorney would have done the same. And he would have never agreed with the SA.

Kelly

He tried to get an attorney, he had no money and all the credit cards were denied.
 
And some equate anything less than lockstep support for the State's case with blaming the victim.

Question aspects of the victims behavior or actions which are detrimental to the State's case? you're blaming the victim.

Question the truthfulness or accuracy of some or any allegations of abuse towards the defendent? you're blaming the victim.

Yes, this is a victim friendly site - everyone understands and acknowledges that, its a good concept, and its what makes this site what ist is. However, when discussing an actual trial and the testimony/evidence you cannot imply that part of that which does not reflect positively on the victim should be ignored.
...but it's not the reason she is dead...so I'm really confused by all of the disparaging remarks strewn throughout the thread. Why do you (not you specifically) have to say anything negative about the victim to justify the husband's behavior? I'm missing something here...and I did once upon a time think Brad was innocent so what does that make me...all those letters...are there ones for that? (just curious)
 
<SNIP> If the router was on the VLAN that night, it was physically some where at Cisco.

<SNIP>

It is not a matter of spinning basic facts. It is making sure that when people claim something as a fact, it really is a fact in evidence or otherwise.

I have to juxtapose those statements. The router was taken by Brad and never returned to Cisco, that is the only evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
184
Guests online
2,317
Total visitors
2,501

Forum statistics

Threads
589,984
Messages
17,928,670
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top