Autopsy

[jumpstreet]

Wouldn't explain why no shoes or socks, though...

Right. With Theory A, I guess the assumption is BC was trying to make it "look like" an attack... If BC could think this is how one might look after an attack... so might the "visitor" perp too though. Either way, to me, is a weird explanation of no shoes. Doesn't seem reasonable (to me) to "stage" someone this way. [ So it's a good point - how she was found isn't totally consistent with Theory B, but on the other hand, as someone else posted, who knows what someone might be thinking when they dump someone. Maybe there was some evidence (of the visitor/perp) was on the shoes, or on the shorts, so they got rid of it. Agree it's a stretch though ]

I guess the most plausible explanation for how she was found is Theory A and not that BC was trying to 'stage it', but rather, that he was in a hurry, and this is all he had time to do. Is it also odd though - to be in a hurry to dispose... and yet have time to stage a phone call and a couple of trips to HT (to get naked green machine juice)?

 

[Anderson]

Yes more than one pair of shoes were seized (3 pairs in fact). However, the 'blue/gray running shoes' were not otherwise identified by size so we don't know who those belong to. The other 2 pairs were Rainbow flipflops and a pair of pumps.

Just a thought

I remember that in BC's initial affidavit he mentioned that NC's family had asked for her hat(s?) and jewellry. I have always wondered if there was a hat that she would wear to go jogging or a piece of jewelry that she wore everyday, something that she had recently mentioned to Krista. But, then he would have known about that I suppose? But perhaps not. Anyway, if this was the case, then that would have further concerned NC's parents, and would have become additional information used in the investigation.

 

[raisincharlie]

Right. With Theory A, I guess the assumption is BC was trying to make it "look like" an attack... If BC could think this is how one might look after an attack... so might the "visitor" perp too though. Either way, to me, is a weird explanation of no shoes. Doesn't seem reasonable (to me) to "stage" someone this way. [ So it's a good point - how she was found isn't totally consistent with Theory B, but on the other hand, as someone else posted, who knows what someone might be thinking when they dump someone. Maybe there was some evidence (of the visitor/perp) was on the shoes, or on the shorts, so they got rid of it. Agree it's a stretch though ]

I guess the most plausible explanation for how she was found is Theory A and not that BC was trying to 'stage it', but rather, that he was in a hurry, and this is all he had time to do. Is it also odd though - to be in a hurry to dispose... and yet have time to stage a phone call and a couple of trips to HT (to get naked green machine juice)?

BC didn't stage anything IMO - he simply disposed of her as she was murdered - he didn't try to dress her, didn't try to make it look like and attack - nothing - he just dumped her and ran. He went to the store so he could prove where he was in case anyone saw his car that morning. He went the second time to have a phone record of supposedly Nancy calling him at the store for juice. He bought detergent because he had things to clean. He's big on paper records.

 

[jumpstreet]

So Nancy left her home wearing only a jogging bra, no shorts, no socks, no shoes? Or she had them on but whoever she left with killed her for some reason and decided to remove her shorts, shoes, and socks and dump them somewhere away from the body? For what reason?

Good points. I think (hope) my response above to jmflu covered it.
Again, not saying Theory B is a slam-dunk or anything, just thinking I'm not sure it's totally off the table (especially from a defense attorney's perspective - which was the original question).

With Theory A (BC did it), the thought on why she was found this way is because BC was in a hurry to move her?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Jump, I think where you're getting stuck in these various scenarios is that you believe BC has some special knowledge or expertise (beyond his VoIP expertise) or is especially clever & cunning and you are painting your scenarios and comparing what you think such a smart/clever/careful/cunning/experienced person 'should' do in each scenario and then in addition how they 'should' react with either a guilty or innocent conscience. And I think these assumptions about BC and about what a person with such attributes would do/or how they 'should' act is tripping you up since BC has not proved to be any of these attributes you are assigning him. You'd probably do better by just following the evidence and looking at the actions of a normal person (not 'innocent' and not 'guilty') and see what fits without twisting things around and around.

 

[raisincharlie]

I am wondering if the way she was found (without shoes and socks, etc.) led LE to be so suspicious of Brad that that was the impetus for them to give custody to the Rentzs. Could they see the obvious lie he told that she went jogging?

jmflu,

If you read the Findings of Fact made by the Judge in the Ex Parte - it clearly says testimony of and from Law Enforcement. LE told this judge something or at least responded to her questions in order for her to make some of the Findings of Fact.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/17/3222032/20080717103017508.pdf

 

[CyberPro]

jmflu,

If you read the Findings of Fact made by the Judge in the Ex Parte - it clearly says testimony of and from Law Enforcement. LE told this judge something or at least responded to her questions in order for her to make some of the Findings of Fact.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/17/3222032/20080717103017508.pdf

RC,

I was about to post to this effect from memory. IIRC the findings stated something like: "Based upon knowledge and belief NC did not leave to go jogging..."

Knowledge and Belief sounds like they had something a bit more than a hunch.

CyberPro

 

[jilly]

BC didn't stage anything IMO - he simply disposed of her as she was murdered - he didn't try to dress her, didn't try to make it look like and attack - nothing - he just dumped her and ran. He went to the store so he could prove where he was in case anyone saw his car that morning. He went the second time to have a phone record of supposedly Nancy calling him at the store for juice. He bought detergent because he had things to clean. He's big on paper records.

Hmmmm. I dunno RC. I usually agree with ya! I'm thinking that he stewed about everything while Nancy was still at the party that nite and then all he!! broke loose when she got home or shortly thereafter.

She normally slept in clothes didn't she? - with her car keys?

So how do you think this all went down?

 

[raisincharlie]

RC,

I was about to post to this effect from memory. IIRC the findings stated something like: "Based upon knowledge and belief NC did not leave to go jogging..."

Knowledge and Belief sounds like they had something a bit more than a hunch.

CyberPro

It also references testimony from LE - and yes knowledge and belief would be their perspective as well at that time.

 

[raisincharlie]

Hmmmm. I dunno RC. I usually agree with ya! I'm thinking that he stewed about everything while Nancy was still at the party that nite and then all he!! broke loose when she got home or shortly thereafter.

She normally slept in clothes didn't she? - with her car keys?

So how do you think this all went down?

Quite honestly Jilly - I think she was murdered prior to 6 am - not when she came home. I do think there was a fight, at least a verbal one but I just don't think it was close to the time she returned from the party. The lack of stomach contents tends to suggest that any food consumed at the party was digested - this takes time. I also think the trips to HT was a mask to explain why his car may have been seen that morning while disposing her body. For a combination of reasons my gut just says she was murdered most likely between 5 and 6 am. The autopsy further enhances that for me - the lack of clothing in particular, and the focus of LE on the boot area of the 325 - just adds up to a later time frame for murder IMO.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Something was going on at 4am in that house. Brad says both he and Nancy got up (to attend to Katie) at 4am. Why would he admit to a 4am time for being awake? They slept in separate rooms. Why would both need to get up to attend to Katie? Who got up first and then woke the other up? And why was the other parent 'needed' to help with Katie?

 

[raisincharlie]

Something was going on at 4am in that house. Brad says both he and Nancy got up (to attend to Katie) at 4am. Why would he admit to a 4am time for being awake?

Maybe Katie really did wake up - maybe some lights were turned on, maybe he was so paranoid about his neighbors watching him he knew he had to admit to being up incase one of those nosey neighbors or the newspaper delivery person saw the lights on. Lots of reasons to admit it.

 

[Anderson]

:yes: And he didn't mention the 4am wake up in the initial affidavit. Covering his tracks, I think.

Maybe Katie really did wake up - maybe some lights were turned on, maybe he was so paranoid about his neighbors watching him he knew he had to admit to being up incase one of those nosey neighbors or the newspaper delivery person saw the lights on. Lots of reasons to admit it.

 

[raisincharlie]

:yes: And he didn't mention the 4am wake up in the initial affidavit. Covering his tracks, I think.

There you go - apparently no one from the neighborhood saw the lights or noticed he was up or saw his car. Therefore - why say anything ? He obviously felt LE bought his story hook line and sinker. And I must say - Cary PD must be very slick cos it seems to me they got a lot of information from Brad before he hired himself a lawyer - good for them !

 

[jilly]

Quite honestly Jilly - I think she was murdered prior to 6 am - not when she came home. I do think there was a fight, at least a verbal one but I just don't think it was close to the time she returned from the party. The lack of stomach contents tends to suggest that any food consumed at the party was digested - this takes time. I also think the trips to HT was a mask to explain why his car may have been seen that morning while disposing her body. For a combination of reasons my gut just says she was murdered most likely between 5 and 6 am. The autopsy further enhances that for me - the lack of clothing in particular, and the focus of LE on the boot area of the 325 - just adds up to a later time frame for murder IMO.

OK - I can go with that but if that's the case, since you don't believe he dressed her, how'd she end up with just a sports bra on?

 

[raisincharlie]

OK - I can go with that but if that's the case, since you don't believe he dressed her, how'd she end up with just a sports bra on?

Maybe she was just getting ready to shower or she was getting out of the shower - maybe she was just getting ready to run and was changing from pj's or whatever she slept in - I dunno.

But her clothing (lack of clothing) doesn't really say to me that someone else tried to put it on her honestly.

ETA - remember LE noticed cleaning products in Nancy's bathroom on the Saturday she went missing per the probable cause affidavit.

 

[jumpstreet]

Jump, I think where you're getting stuck in these various scenarios is that you believe BC has some special knowledge or expertise (beyond his VoIP expertise) or is especially clever & cunning and you are painting your scenarios and comparing what you think such a smart/clever/careful/cunning/experienced person 'should' do in each scenario and then in addition how they 'should' react with either a guilty or innocent conscience. And I think these assumptions about BC and about what a person with such attributes would do/or how they 'should' act is tripping you up since BC has not proved to be any of these attributes you are assigning him. You'd probably do better by just following the evidence and looking at the actions of a normal person (not 'innocent' and not 'guilty') and see what fits without twisting things around and around.

Yeah, good feedback SG. I am trying (best I can) to consider all the evidence (and our explanations of it). In general, I am also trying to be very careful not to 'discount all that doesn't support my theory', while 'embracing all information that does'. I think this is key to remaining objective, though it does take a little effort. I'm also to look at consider all reasonably possible scenarios (based on the evidence and associated explanations), and go from there.

This sub-thread (on Theory B) was just a response to a posted query about whether the defense could still realistically paint a picture that it was a 'stranger that NC knew, and not BC'. My response to that was 'of course', and then I did a thumbnail sketch of how such a picture might look.

Those of us who have him guilty, do have him being "calculating" enough to go to HT (twice) to stage a phone call, making purchases while the kids were at home alone, and that's our explanation of the evidence we know. And yet he's "sloppy" enough to not worry about what she was wearing (the evidence from today). Not that the above two things are incompatible, but they do seem on face value as slightly 'inconsistent' to me. That's not to say that killers always act consistently (of course they don't), but it's potentially inconsistent enough for a defense attorney to paint an alternative picture.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Those of us who have him guilty, do have him being "calculating" enough to go to HT (twice) to stage a phone call, making purchases while the kids were at home alone, and that's our explanation of the evidence we know.

1. He HAD to go to the store to get detergent in order to do the laundry & cleaning at some point. Makes logical sense to do it before the kids wake up AND of course it works in case anyone saw the car that early.

2. The one thing he does know & understand in-depth is phone technology. He is very focused on proof through phone records.

 

[raisincharlie]

Yeah, good feedback SG. I am trying (best I can) to consider all the evidence (and our explanations of it). In general, I am also trying to be very careful not to 'discount all that doesn't support my theory', while 'embracing all information that does'. I think this is key to remaining objective, though it does take a little effort. I'm also to look at consider all reasonably possible scenarios (based on the evidence and associated explanations), and go from there.

This sub-thread (on Theory B) was just a response to a posted query about whether the defense could still realistically paint a picture that it was a 'stranger that NC knew, and not BC'. My response to that was 'of course', and then I did a thumbnail sketch of how such a picture might look.

Those of us who have him guilty, do have him being "calculating" enough to go to HT (twice) to stage a phone call, making purchases while the kids were at home alone, and that's our explanation of the evidence we know. And yet he's "sloppy" enough to not worry about what she was wearing (the evidence from today). Not that the above two things are incompatible, but they do seem on face value as slightly 'inconsistent' to me. That's not to say that killers always act consistently (of course they don't), but it's potentially inconsistent enough for a defense attorney to paint an alternative picture.

Recall the saying -"hindsight is 20/20" ?

Any actions after the murder and disposal would be hindsight. Brad didn't think anyone would notice he was wearing different shoes on his second trip to HT either - the devil is in the details, obviously he wasn't thinking about small details.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Yes, what one might think of as him being especially wily and crafty might just be dumb maneuvers because he didn't think everything through or pay attention to the level of details that others do or would.