April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

Status
Not open for further replies.
Over the weekend, I rewatched several parts of the trial that I had watched closely in real time. Maybe I am imagining, but it seemed that fewer of the objections and related discussions were audible in the archives than were heard in court, possibly a few answers that begun before there was an objection. Anyone notice any things like this? Do we know what the wral.com policy is on this?
 
One thing though that hasn't been addressed (from what we've seen) is the law's stand on what happens to the divorcing spouse when they are no longer legal to stay in the US? I don't think was discussed when AS was on the stand. Sure, their divorce goes thru the NC courts, and NC's divorce laws, but there has to be something addressed to the fact NC isn't legally able to stay in the US anymore. So the court can certainly say custody is 50/50 but that wouldn't be reality in the BC/NC case. My understanding is she wasn't legally able to stay in the US after the divorce was final since she was here as a spouse on BC's visa? So even though courts will say 1 parent cannot move the kids from the other parent, something would have to give in the BC/NC scenario. Did AS have international/immigration experience as well, or someone in her law firm?

What would be her status then with US Immigration as the mother of two US citizens? Her anchor babies?
 
I don't think it was ever testified (or proven) he said he never wanted to see them again? My opinion was it was NC's over the top story telling to her friends/family.

I can't remember who testified to having knowledge that BC said he never wanted to see "the three of them again," but it was testified to.
 
What would be her status then with US Immigration as the mother of two US citizens? Her anchor babies?

That term anchor baby is a misnomer. An alien, legal or illegal, having a baby in the US does not give them an anchor to the US because of the birth, other than a tenuious possibility that one day the child will request a VISA for them. The baby or child would not be able to support the immigration of their parent or family member until they were 18 years old and then only under very strict requirements. One of those requirements is that the child has to state and prove they could support the parent. I believe NCs status would be that he was the mother of two dual residency citizens with no other special rights afforded to her.
 
I can't remember who testified to having knowledge that BC said he never wanted to see "the three of them again," but it was testified to.

I don't think anyone heard BC say that except NC. It was told by NC to her friends/family. I may be incorrect.
 
One other thing to know about NC "Family" law, unless it has changed, is that in addition to alienation of affections, a person can sue a 3rd party for having sex with their spouse under a cause of action called criminal conversation. Most don't know about it, and the claim exists even if the plaintiff spouse has cheated too and even if the parties are separated, unless a separation agreement releases such claims which they usually do.
 
Interesting that you and others continue to refuse to comment on the phone calls other than that say that NC made the 6:40am call. For as much as you believe that the CPD is corrupt you seem to have zero doubt about the legitimacy of those early morning calls.

Yet, you and others, claim to want to know all the facts before considering guilt. At the same time there seems to be no doubt in yours and others mind that there is absolute guilt of tampering and corruption in the police dept.

You seem to be unable to accept that there was no proof of a spoofed call provided by the state. That's why I'm not discussing it anymore. And I have said before, had there been, this would be a completely different case.
 
See, this is what happens when you look at a case as a big puzzle. Now I haven't sat down and jotted anything down, but just thinking about IT, a few things come to mind.

1. BC said he went to sleep at 9 with the girls. YET, there's evidence that he was on his computer AFTER 9.

2. There's evidence, PERHAPS, that NC did NOT sleep in her bed that night.

3. BC NORMALLY slept in the computer room or whatever and NC slept in the bedroom with the girls, behind closed and locked door, with the girls, her phone, keys, id...................yet, we're to believe the USUAL routine was not followed on the very night, NC COULD OR MAY have been murdered.

See how inprobable these are. Then, to top it off, the USUAL assortment of items in the foyer of the home are missing from just a few hours prior.

Scenario, BC did NOT go to sleep at 9 but waited for NC and attacked her as she came in the door. Thus the sleeping children would most likely not heard a thing......................or,...................they may have been arguing and NC decided to leave and he attacked her at the door.

............of course, then there's the necklace, the mysteriously laundered dress, the description of what BC said she was wearing and two left shoes....................oh, not to mention the {google search!}

Oh the tangle web we weave,.......................

JMHO
fran


PS....just fwiw, IMHO, I've seen a few men on here who's dear wife was murdered by SOMEONE ELSE! and they couldn't say enough sweet, heart-felt things about their dearly departed.

OTOH, BC did NOT have ONE good thing to say about Nancy. I trust everyone's read the depos? :mad:

I know, I know, he KNEW he was suspected and was looking out for himself!
pfffffttttttt................:maddening:...............I'm suuurrrree the jury will buy that.....NOT!

I will add to this one big thing for me - well, two...
One biggie: He NEVER got the allowance money for NC for that weekend... NEVER, not on Friday morning as was normal. Not on Friday evening when he stopped for beer. Not on the "two" trips out on Saturday morning. He never got the money for her. Why? She wasn't going to be needing it - and he knew that because he had a plan - a pre-determined plan.
Two: He wants people to believe he is concerned (after her friends call the police to ask about her being out of contact for several hours) enough about NC to take the girls and drive around like a madman searching places he thought she might be - and yet, he never called a hospital, never went to any emergency rooms, never called the police himself - and on top of that his cell phone rings and he doesn't answer it regardless of who it was calling. If you are looking for someone who might have to contact you, you would answer the phone. And even beyond that... he hears a voicemail message from a police officer - and he doesn't return the call. That is very telling to me - he was buying himself time. Straightening out his story, dumping evidence, getting his doody together, delaying what he knew was coming - just coming a lot faster than he had hoped or thought would happen.
 
That term anchor baby is a misnomer. An alien, legal or illegal, having a baby in the US does not give them an anchor to the US because of the birth, other than a tenuious possibility that one day the child will request a VISA for them. The baby or child would not be able to support the immigration of their parent or family member under they were 18 years old and then only under very strict requirements. One of those requirements is that the child has to state and prove they could support the parent. I believe NCs status would be that he was the mother of two dual residency citizens with no other special rights afforded to her.

I was joking about the so-called anchor babies. I was asking in regard to how the US is handling this now. I thought there were some slight changes to the law and regulations because of things like a non-citizen mother of children becoming an "illegal alien" because her citizen husband was in the military and killed in action.

ETA: I know in the past that there were cases where the citizen spouses threatened to divorce and send their spouses "home" and away from their children.
 
We keep hearing about the voicemail she left the realtor, did we hear that voicemail, did he keep it? He was quite adversarial to Brad's investigator, why is his voicemail not being questioned if he did not save it, and was the call confirmed by telephone records?
 
If she was killed in the foyer upon arriving home and it was messy enough to warrant disposal of sticks and ducks as well as extensive floor cleaning, why were the shoes she wore to the party right there by the table in the foyer? Wouldn't there have been evidence on the shoes?

She most likely had already taken off the shoes prior to the attack. They may have been in her hand and went flying. They wouldn't be broken, so there would be no reason to throw them away. It was a bloodless kill, so nothing to get on them.

It's a possible scenario.

JMHO
fran
 
I will add to this one big thing for me - well, two...
One biggie: He NEVER got the allowance money for NC for that weekend... NEVER, not on Friday morning as was normal. Not on Friday evening when he stopped for beer. Not on the "two" trips out on Saturday morning. He never got the money for her. Why? She wasn't going to be needing it - and he knew that because he had a plan - a pre-determined plan.
Two: He wants people to believe he is concerned (after her friends call the police to ask about her being out of contact for several hours) enough about NC to take the girls and drive around like a madman searching places he thought she might be - and yet, he never called a hospital, never went to any emergency rooms, never called the police himself - and on top of that his cell phone rings and he doesn't answer it regardless of who it was calling. If you are looking for someone who might have to contact you, you would answer the phone. And even beyond that... he hears a voicemail message from a police officer - and he doesn't return the call. That is very telling to me - he was buying himself time. Straightening out his story, dumping evidence, getting his doody together, delaying what he knew was coming - just coming a lot faster than he had hoped or thought would happen.


But did the state establish that he was never late in giving N the $300? If they did I missed it. Maybe he was late regularly, trying to make her life miserable.

As for how he reacted, I've said it before, I don't think there was any love between the two at the time of her death. He was in a very acrimonious relationship with her at this point. How can you even speculate on how he "should" have acted?
 
I think that when Brad participated in the deposition with Alice Stubbs, he had received legal advice not to do that. No lawyer in his right mind would advise his client, who was obviously a suspect in his wife's murder, to do that. Brad did it anyway, because he did not want to lose custody of his kids. To me, that shows he wanted them and he loved them.

But, he could have thought that he had no choice, an innocent man would have nothing to hide. He would look guilty if he did not.
I still am on the fence, but, along with any LE dept., you definitely have to look closest to home first. If you can't clear the DH, you have to keep looking at him, imo.
 
I will add to this one big thing for me - well, two...
One biggie: He NEVER got the allowance money for NC for that weekend... NEVER, not on Friday morning as was normal. Not on Friday evening when he stopped for beer. Not on the "two" trips out on Saturday morning. He never got the money for her. Why? She wasn't going to be needing it - and he knew that because he had a plan - a pre-determined plan.
Two: He wants people to believe he is concerned (after her friends call the police to ask about her being out of contact for several hours) enough about NC to take the girls and drive around like a madman searching places he thought she might be - and yet, he never called a hospital, never went to any emergency rooms, never called the police himself - and on top of that his cell phone rings and he doesn't answer it regardless of who it was calling. If you are looking for someone who might have to contact you, you would answer the phone. And even beyond that... he hears a voicemail message from a police officer - and he doesn't return the call. That is very telling to me - he was buying himself time. Straightening out his story, dumping evidence, getting his doody together, delaying what he knew was coming - just coming a lot faster than he had hoped or thought would happen.

I thought the whole argument over the money was that he wasn't going to give it to her that week because she had just received $240 from JA for painting. Isn't that what they were arguing about at the Duncan's?
 
I still am on the fence, but, along with any LE dept., you definitely have to look closest to home first. If you can't clear the DH, you have to keep looking at him, imo.

I completely agree that BC should have been a suspect, or at least a person of interest, from early on. This is why I think it is SO disingenuous for the detectives to say he wasn't a person of interest. Particularly when I don't think anyone would fault them for saying "yeah, we zeroed in on the husband, wouldn't anyone?" But then, they should also continue to look at other people, and they've stated they did not. I think *that* is precisely where they went wrong. Instead, they zeroed in on him, and keep saying things like "it was a safety detail" instead of surveillance of "we would have looked at other people, but they weren't married to her."
 
I thought the whole argument over the money was that he wasn't going to give it to her that week because she had just received $240 from JA for painting. Isn't that what they were arguing about at the Duncan's?

Well--that, and she got $700 the week before. And BC offered to drive home from work to bring her the cash, and she said not to worry about it.
 
But did the state establish that he was never late in giving N the $300? If they did I missed it. Maybe he was late regularly, trying to make her life miserable.

As for how he reacted, I've said it before, I don't think there was any love between the two at the time of her death. He was in a very acrimonious relationship with her at this point. How can you even speculate on how he "should" have acted?

As a matter of fact, BC testified, as was in the admitted for evidence deposition tapes, that he would move the payment day UP when NC asked him to. Started out on a Monday, I believe, then moved up to Sunday, then Saturday, and was finally moved up to Fridays. He stated he didn't give her the allowance that weekend in the admitted for evidence deposition tapes.

And his original story with police was that he and NC were doing well as a married couple and on the mend. His story was he was out looking for her and going everywhere like a madman - so much so that he couldn't even remember where all he had driven to look for her. His story was that he was concerned enough to take the girls out and go look for her. If he was THAT concerned, he would have answered his phone or returned a police officer's call. After all, she was the mother of his children. So you believe because they were headed for divorce his attitude would have justifiably been, "Oh, well, girls, your mother done gone and got herself killed. What's for lunch? Want to go to the science museum afterwards?"
 
But did the state establish that he was never late in giving N the $300? If they did I missed it. Maybe he was late regularly, trying to make her life miserable.

As for how he reacted, I've said it before, I don't think there was any love between the two at the time of her death. He was in a very acrimonious relationship with her at this point. How can you even speculate on how he "should" have acted?

This forum is for speculation--about a lot of everything since we don't know the 'facts' about many aspects of their relationship, her murder, his involvement, etc. You have to accept the speculation along with the 'facts'
 
Straightening out his story, dumping evidence, getting his doody together, delaying what he knew was coming - just coming a lot faster than he had hoped or thought would happen.

Not too much faster -- didn't they have plans with another couple that evening? I wonder what BC would have told them. Unless I'm totally off base about the plans, of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
782
Total visitors
889

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,767
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top