I go with trial testimony.
Clearly you are not because you have consistently ignored trial testimony as well as argument during the trial that were outside the testimony.
Could police just decide to interview the eldest child, a minor, without Brad's permission as her legal guardian? That's a yes or no answer, Oenophile.
Could the police have asked Brad's permission to interview the eldest child? That is a yes or no answer, Madeleine74. Did the police ask Brad's permission to interview the eldest child? That is a yes or no answer, Madeleine74. Did Brad refuse permission to interview the eldest child? That is a yes or no answer, Madeleine74.
You keep claiming police "refused" to interview the child. That's your exact word. Refused. And I asked you who requested them to do so? You know full well police can't legally interview a child without the parent's permission. They should have asked for that permission, though had Brad refused I wonder what folks would have thought about that? But they didn't, so we'll never know that.
The police did not need Brad to request an interview with the child. The public requested that the police do a thorough investigation as part of their civic duty. That includes following up all leads and gathering appropriate evidence. The police "refused" to do that.
At the point of the initial investigation on the afternoon of 7/12/08 Nancy had not come home and no one knew where she was. The eldest child did not see her mother out running. She would not have been able to pinpoint Nancy's whereabouts. The statement relayed through Dismukes proffer via Clea, outside of cameras and outside the presence of the jury is that the daughter "saw her mother that morning," right? She wasn't out running with her mother, the child wasn't even dressed until sometime after 9am. So any sighting she had of her mother would have been inside the house and before 7am, correct? How would that have helped *find* a missing Nancy? They already had Brad saying Nancy left the house at or slightly before 7am. Brad gave a description of what he presumed Nancy was wearing. The efforts on 7/12 - 7/14 were on conducting searches and trying to figure out where Nancy was.
The police seemed plenty intent on determining if she had actually been out running that morning, as BC claimed. Interviewing the child could have helped verify that.
Are you SERIOUSLY saying that the police had no reason to interview the child????????? What could possibly make you think that?
The reason you're actually upset about this statement not coming in at trial is because you want Nancy to be alive at whatever time she needs to be still alive in order to make it impossible for Brad to have killed his wife. It doesn't matter if the child was coaxed or even outright told she saw her mother and was manipulated, and of course we can't know any such thing occurred, the point is a statement coming in would have been suggestive enough for the defense to claim that's an alibi for Brad, and that's where the anger is really centered. Because it's all about Brad.
That is just baloney and insulting.
1. I have NEVER stated that I was upset that this statement was not coming up at trial. Legally, I think the court was correct in excluding it.
2. I have stated repeatedly, from the beginning, and consistently, that my belief in BC's innocence is based on the EVIDENCE and the EVIDENCE alone. While it is true that I am considering evidence that was excluded in BC's unfair trial, it is entirely based on what was raised as part of the trial process. NC was killed. No one can change that. And no one can change who did it. If the EVIDENCE says that BC did not kill his wife, then he didn't. If the EVIDENCE proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he did, then he did. I don't want BC to be innocent, and I don't want BC to be guilty, I want his innocence or guilt to be ACCURATE.
3. That is the second time (or more) that you have accused me of working for the defense or suggested that I was pushing for BC to be innocent. I have stated repeatedly the conditions by which I would change my opinion to guilty. It is fundamentally wrong for you to make this accusation.
I think an apology is in order.
Ok let's address reality. What is the reality, Oenophile? I go with trial testimony, just like the jury. You are imagining and suggesting things that have zero basis in fact -- like imagining a daughter waking up and seeing her mother (dressed in running gear I suppose) while Brad is at Harris Teeter, then claiming Brad must have been confused about what transpired that morning, and investigators must have gotten his story wrong in their notes anyway. Um, okay. Point to the trial testimony in which any witness provides proof of Brad's confusion about that morning or even any testimony that the story he told any of the (3? 4?) officers is different than what the investigators testified to when they were on the stand?
REALITY #1: The trial verdict was set aside because the trial was considered unfair.
REALITY #2: The police updated their notes well after the initial interviews that day to include things that would be damaging to Brad, and then included these in their testimony.
REALITY #3: Nancy's friends made mistakes that day recalling the events of the night before and even the morning of, which came out in trial testimony.
REALITY #4: Brad has been accused of lying in his hours-long deposition about specifics that night and that morning, for example about not working that evening, but these "lies" serve no benefit to his defense because they were easily discoverable. If he were guilty, he would have been better off accurately remembering what he did that night, which infers that he wasn't in fact lying but rather misremembered, just like Nancy's friends misremembered.
REALITY #5: The child made the statement to the neighbor.
Your denial of REALITY #5 is telling. Again, you are attempting to impeach the child. Shameful.
