April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[Lori59]

A real big, real bright lightbulb just went off over my head.

The light bulb was flashing over my head earlier today.

 

[sunshine05]

I do wonder if BW is the BW from Dragon's Den.

I seem to recall that the BW that NC knew was in the oil business?

 

[otto]

Brad said 'nancy never jogs alone, she never jogs from home. She always drives somewhere to meet up with the jogging buddy. How soon we forget. Brad said she went jogging with CC, because Nancy doesn't jog alone.

And the former friend that testified Thursday revealed that Nancy used her as an alibi, which to me means that Nancy sometimes told her husband she was doing one thing when in fact she was doing something else.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Yay 3 cheers for the defense team. Is everybody present and accounted for now?

 

[dramamama]

How can you confuse who was doing laundry? You just don't. I either did it or I did not. Or I am lying.

To say you see someone leave, or hear them leave, and don't remember the perfect time it was, or what they were wearing, okay. You may not necessarily know it is the last time you will see them and take appropriate notice. I don't even remember what I wore yesterday unless I look at the laundry basket. But to not remember who did the laundry? Please.......

 

[SleuthinNC]

I seem to recall that the BW that NC knew was in the oil business?

It does seem to be the same person. Interesting.

 

[gracielee]

IIRC...Its my understanding that defense attny or Pros. for that matter..can NOT Subborn perjury..in other words since their words is NOT testimony they can say whatever they want..speculate, suggest etc..SO as I have witnessed many many trials suggesting all sorts of things ( Take Cayley Case as an example)..HOWEVER, they can cannot put someone on the stand to state something they KNOW is false or a LIE..AND if proven as such..either one of the lawyers can be lose their license and be in BIG Do DO..

Its also IIRC that is precisely why Def. Attny do not want to know if their client is guilty or not..No confessions so to speak..as it really curtails their defense..They can suggest all they wish, and attempt to discredit Pros. witnesses ( which is mostly their focus in trials) as IF they indeed have solid proof then it would never come to trial in the first place......

JMOO on that point you are making :seeya:

Exactly, and that document being quoted here repeatedly, is nothing more than a huge fishing expedition, casting nets far and wide, hoping to snag something, anything. Thanks.

 

[kljohnson0458]

I did an experiment this morning. We have many people who run along the river every day. So today I started checking people out and focused on one woman runner. I got to work, try to focus my mind on what I saw, I could not even tell you what she was wearing. I remembered her dark hair and a hat. Of course I wasn't looking at a woman that showed up dead later today (I hope) but it goes to show that people can make themselves think they can identify a person from just a quick instant glance. JMO. I believe that FL guy and RZ think they saw Nancy but I believe it wasn't her. Unless you'd have a conversation and at least 5 minutes with the person, you can't peg them.

ETA; If I were the FL guy and noted something suspicious with a van that did a U-turn supposedly towards this runner, no matter how late I was for work, I would have checked it out if he were so concerned. I believe the van turned into the Java Jive which someone identified as the building next to the golf course building. JMO

 

[calgary123]

I do wonder if BW is the BW from Dragon's Den.

It is.

 

[SleuthinNC]

It is.

Thanks! That's what I thought. I may be the only one but I find that interesting. I wonder what information if any will come out about him.

 

[SleuthSayer]

3) IF Nancy had indeed had an ongoing Relationship..All phone logs have been obtained from providers..so maybe not texts but all ###'s right?. I am sure all those people connected with those ### were contacted and either had alibi's or were no where near the scene

I am not suggesting that Nancy did this (and don't think that she did), but as something of a public service announcement, I'll point out that you can't really tell that a spouse is having an affair from phone records. Why? One of the common tools of the person having an affair is a second "secret" cell phone that their spouse does not know about. Often it is done with prepaid phones (Tracfone, etc) because they require no contracts and the minutes can be purchased with cash. So, no records.

 

[Tink56]

In fact, I have yet to make up my mind and the day that this trial comes to a close I could as easily feel that he is guilty as he is innocent. What you fail to see is that most of the posters that you accuse of supporting BC are doing no such thing. We are merely supporting the idea that a person is innocent until found guilty and refuse to allow the prosecution to skirt their responsibility to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt because that is our civic duty.

SNIPPED AND BBM...To focus on an intriguing poster philosophy that I've seen repeated in trial after trial. Generally during the trial, message boards such as WS are populated by fairly new posters who have one concern..."their civic duty."

IMO, the average citizen doesn't have a complete understanding of the adversarial construction of the American jurisprudence system. The line about the prosecution's "responsibility" is almost a law school textbook line.

Innocence and guilt are secondary to this philosophy. The standard line that will follow is: "It is better to release 9 guilty people rather than convict 1 innocent person." Honestly, my response is we must also have the ability to trust the instincts of jurors and trust their ability to weigh the evidence. I have been amazed at the seriousness and logic and adherence to jury instructions that members of the juries on which I served have approached the task of looking at all the evidence and testimony.

Maybe all the posters whose words seem a little too oriented toward the defensive point of view are simply educated individuals who are well schooled in the finer points of legal speak. IDK...

I really DK....but I do know that comments such as yours and others recently on this forum cause me to ask, "Why?" The fervent nature and the righteousness with which the words are posted seem to indicate knowledge and experience that excludes the "average citizen." IMO...MOO...and all that stuff....:innocent:

 

[otto]

I'm sorry but dirty moves??? :waitasec: The prosecution can not discredit "good" testimony. If it was good, it would stand up to cross examination.

The prosecution didn't attack the validity of the testimony given by JW, they attacked the person. Indeed, it was to place his credibility into question, but it was a bit of a dirty move, IMO. His professionalism was attacked on several levels: number of jobs in 10 years, pictures that he removed from a facebook page, thoughts on conspiracy theories on a personal page. They couldn't say anything about his technical experience or testimony.

The prosecution did the same thing with the child psychologist friend by implying that she changed her testimony, and attempting to trick her into giving a professional opinion when she was testifying as a friend. They couldn't do anything about her testimony, so they attempted to give the jury the impression that she was lying. That's also an underhanded or dirty move on behalf of the prosecution.

The testimony stood up to cross examination no problem, so the prosecution attacked the witness.

 

[otto]

I seem to recall that the BW that NC knew was in the oil business?

This guy? http://www.google.ca/#q=Brett+Wilson+calgary&bih=700&biw=1487&fp=b758ad1dbbd9fd54&hl=en

 

[cityslick]

That isn't the *only* evidence they had. Teddy Bear is a detective, he observed Brad's lies, 'we are working on our marriage', 'I cleaned the house all day today, to make Nancy happy'. As Teddy said 'if this is what a house looks like *clean*, lord save us.' Well, he didn't exactly say those words, but you know that's what he meant. He had a guy who wouldn't come down to the station to give a statement, who never inquired as to what they were doing to find his wife. Now I don't know how many of the ABB'ers are 'regular' crime buffs and how many are just here for this case, but those of us who have been reading crime for decades, have 'hinky meters', much like the Detective. This isn't his first case, his first suspect. Just like for most of us, this isn't our first 'dead wife' case. Hinky meters go off, things set them off. Brad set's off hinky meters, LOUDLY. MOO

Wanted to add, much like Ann Miller Konce set off my hinky meter.

Yes, that is the only evidence they had. How did they know he was lying? Because JA/HP said so?

 

[otto]

Thanks! That's what I thought. I may be the only one but I find that interesting. I wonder what information if any will come out about him.

He was divorced in 2001.

 

[calgary123]

Thanks! That's what I thought. I may be the only one but I find that interesting. I wonder what information if any will come out about him.

I think we've heard all about that we ever will. I could add some pretty interesting things about what I know given the timelines involved as that particular person has a lot of articles written about him and his personal life, being a semi-celebrity. I also happen to have an unusual one-off connection to that person and know a little more than you can get from the articles. His personal life really shouldn't be dragged into this though. I strongly doubt he was intending to rekindle any romance with Nancy in 2008, but it would be like him to be friendly with her and offer support.

 

[calgary123]

He was divorced in 2001.

Yes, the divorce was finalized in 2001. The separation occurred before that though.

 

[Madeleine74]

Here's where the Brad is Innocent folk need to make a decision.

First you have people seeing a runner they thought was Nancy juxtaposed with some random van(s) seen in the area. Implying? Implying Nancy was abducted from the public streets of Cary by some attacker, and this was a random attack. Forget the victim had no defensive wounds let's just go with random attacker, maybe with access to a van of some color.

Next you have someone who had enough knowledge to know something about the murder, where the victim was found, enough details to know or reasonably believe that a changed timestamp on a secure CSCO laptop would nail Brad, but good. Does this person bother to plant any physical evidence connecting Brad Cooper to his wife's murder? No they don't. They just somehow 'hack' into an IBM laptop that is password protected and 'plant' something. This does not imply a random perp, does it?

Unless you believe that both a random perp AND someone else conspired to kill Nancy and pin the murder on Brad, you need to go with one or the other.

So which is it?

- Random attacker?

- Someone who knew Nancy?

- Someone who knew Nancy and had skillzzz to hack into Brad's computer?

 

[SleuthSayer]

AL is apparently Facebook friends with several of the prosecution witnesses. And the day that I stopped into court I sat in the back and noticed that when Mr. Rentz walked into the courtroom for the start of the day he stopped by the room where AL sits and had a friendly conversation with her. I agree that WRAL should not have her reporting on this case.

I think that the right way to say it is that she was Facebook friends with them. I think that the end of that was mostly concurrent with the prosecution deciding to put people's FB pages in play. :waitasec: