Post verdict discussion of evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moderators - is it okay if I start a new thread to discuss some remaining questions regarding this case? ( If you need to delete this I will understand.)

Thanks for this!

I also started a thread specifically for the Appeal - which I will try to keep updated.
 
Among other things I'd like to know the importance of the ducks and decorative sticks. Why were they mentioned as often as they were?

Because, IMO, their disappearance after a friend (JA?) testified they had been in the foyer the day before NC disappeared, along with BC's washing the foyer floor that day, bolstered the theory that NC had been murdered in the foyer.

The ducks and sticks needed to disappear because they were either vomited upon by NC during her murder, or they were somehow damaged during the strife.

In turn, the vomit theory supports the idea that NC was killed soon after she arrived home, and since he was the only one there capable of killing her, BC did it. The autopsy report showed, IIRC, that she had only a small amount of red fluid and a small piece of onion in her stomach.

BC's mother found the ducks packed in a box, after NC's body had been discovered, IIRC. This does not mean that BC did not hide the ducks after something happened to them, and then put them in the box himself after NC went missing. There is no proof of that, however. The missing sticks were never found.

The trouble with the theory is that there is no proof, particularly beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is the truth. IMO, a theory is a lovely thing if it has evidence to back it up.
 
I have taken the days since the verdict off to try to get my life back on track after spending so much time on the trial - did Jay Ward ever come back and post what he found on the computer? I just watched Kurtz's interview with WRAL and it certainly sounds like they have concrete proof the computer was tampered with. Anyone???
 
I have taken the days since the verdict off to try to get my life back on track after spending so much time on the trial - did Jay Ward ever come back and post what he found on the computer? I just watched Kurtz's interview with WRAL and it certainly sounds like they have concrete proof the computer was tampered with. Anyone???

Not yet....and after his post coming up in the trial, I doubt he will.
 
Because, IMO, their disappearance after a friend (JA?) testified they had been in the foyer the day before NC disappeared, along with BC's washing the foyer floor that day, bolstered the theory that NC had been murdered in the foyer.

The ducks and sticks needed to disappear because they were either vomited upon by NC during her murder, or they were somehow damaged during the strife.

In turn, the vomit theory supports the idea that NC was killed soon after she arrived home, and since he was the only one there capable of killing her, BC did it. The autopsy report showed, IIRC, that she had only a small amount of red fluid and a small piece of onion in her stomach.

BC's mother found the ducks packed in a box, after NC's body had been discovered, IIRC. This does not mean that BC did not hide the ducks after something happened to them, and then put them in the box himself after NC went missing. There is no proof of that, however. The missing sticks were never found.

The trouble with the theory is that there is no proof, particularly beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is the truth. IMO, a theory is a lovely thing if it has evidence to back it up.

Did anyone else catch, in closing Kurtz said that JA initially told police she just called NC on Friday afternoon, then later changed it to she visited her at her home. I always wondered about that too because NC spoke to others on the phone that afternoon and JA never mentioned the calls while she was there. (KL and HP both called her). If she never was there, she wouldn't have seen the ducks or sticks (which I believe NC packed up long before in anticipation of moving).
 
Another thing that bothers me about this case is how much attention was made about BC's affair, as if that indicated motive. It *could* if the suspect were still involved in the affair and wanted to off the spouse to be with the person they are having an affair with, but that doesn't apply in this case. The affair had nothing at all to do with this case, except that it was the reason for the divorce. I guess I'm just puzzled that the state made this such a large part of the case when it wouldn't have had anything to do with motive. I still fail to see what the motive was.


KISS and common sense apply here.

The affair was the motive for the divorce. The divorce was a motive for the murder.

JMHO
fran
 
Will there be a public release of the transcript from the offer of proof given by CF on the subject of the windows system event log?

I think that info will show that 3825 was in the house and being configured at 10:21pm on 7/11, but that router was not in the house on 7/12.

Seems like if we could have a more interesting discussion about the router if we had info from that testimony that was not streamed.
 
Will there be a public release of the transcript from the offer of proof given by CF on the subject of the windows system event log?

I think that info will show that 3825 was in the house and being configured at 10:21pm on 7/11, but that router was not in the house on 7/12.

Seems like if we could have a more interesting discussion about the router if we had info from that testimony that was not streamed.

Actually, we don't know that the router wasn't there on the 12th. I'm not arguing that it was, but the search warrant for network equipment in the house wasn't served until October. It just wasn't in the pictures taken on the 12th.
 
Because, IMO, their disappearance after a friend (JA?) testified they had been in the foyer the day before NC disappeared, along with BC's washing the foyer floor that day, bolstered the theory that NC had been murdered in the foyer.

The ducks and sticks needed to disappear because they were either vomited upon by NC during her murder, or they were somehow damaged during the strife.

In turn, the vomit theory supports the idea that NC was killed soon after she arrived home, and since he was the only one there capable of killing her, BC did it. The autopsy report showed, IIRC, that she had only a small amount of red fluid and a small piece of onion in her stomach.

BC's mother found the ducks packed in a box, after NC's body had been discovered, IIRC. This does not mean that BC did not hide the ducks after something happened to them, and then put them in the box himself after NC went missing. There is no proof of that, however. The missing sticks were never found.

The trouble with the theory is that there is no proof, particularly beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is the truth. IMO, a theory is a lovely thing if it has evidence to back it up.

Did they ever really discuss this theory? I remember (but please forgive me it's now all one big jumble in my head now) thinking they would bring this up but felt like they never did. Then Cummings had the weird questions with Mrs. Cooper about the ducks and I felt very confused. Just seemed like an odd amount of time used on this for something that ended up not being much of anything.
 
Did they ever really discuss this theory? I remember (but please forgive me it's now all one big jumble in my head now) thinking they would bring this up but felt like they never did. Then Cummings had the weird questions with Mrs. Cooper about the ducks and I felt very confused. Just seemed like an odd amount of time used on this for something that ended up not being much of anything.

Everything JA told police laid the foundation for their entire case: NC never took off her necklace, the Cooper's only used ALL detergent, Nancy never ran alone, ducks and sticks were missing from the foyer and NC was due at her house to paint that morning. All have been proven false in the trial, except the paint plans, but that story has lots of holes in it. Take all of what she said away and the already very weak case becomes even weaker. What are we left with?
He cleaned the floor
He did laundry
His trunk was clean - did anyone ever photograph the rest of the car to see if it was also clean? We're told it was not, but I haven't seen evidence or missed it if it was presented. Plus SBI said some dirt was found in the trunk. It was not showroom clean.


I'm not even going to talk about the google evidence here because he was arrested for murder before that was even found.
 
KISS and common sense apply here.

The affair was the motive for the divorce. The divorce was a motive for the murder.

JMHO
fran

I personally don't see the divorce as motive for murder. There are some relationships where the spouse is very controlling and won't let their spouse leave or divorce them and things get volatile. They won't let them go. (If I can't have you no one can, type of thing). I don't see indication of that in their marriage so I don't see the divorce as motive.
 
I think the Google search may have been found before arrest. Not totally sure on that, but I think so.
 
Being divorced in and of itself probably is not a motive--but the money that is required to get divorced and then the settlements of property, assets, 401K, stock, etc, etc, can add up to a significant amount. Then there's alimony and child support.

Financial pressure or incentive is often a reason or a motive for crimes, including murder. Add in anger/rage and it's a potent cocktail.

People who were pointing their finger at JP used financial pressure as their reason for a 'motive' for him. Except JP wasn't under any financial pressure from Nancy.

Brad was, or would have been.
 
As a quiet, introverted man, this quote scares the hell out of me. I've always followed the Twain mindset that it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Gossip queens are far worse because they inject their opinions into the minds of others, who often accept those words as fact.

Naw, I don't think quiet and devoid of expression and reaction are the same. I don't think quiet and having even people who've known you for years not really know who you are are the same thing either. Even of the people who testified in BC's defense, not one of them had an insight into who he was or what he was like as a person. All those years, and not a clue as to his inner workings. Definitely not the same thing as quiet.
 
Being divorced in and of itself probably is not a motive--but the money that is required to get divorced and then the settlements of property, assets, 401K, stock, etc, etc, can add up to a significant amount. Then there's alimony and child support.

Financial pressure or incentive is often a reason or a motive for crimes, including murder. Add in anger/rage and it's a potent cocktail.

People who were pointing their finger at JP used financial pressure as their reason for a 'motive' for him. Except JP wasn't under any financial pressure from Nancy.

Brad was, or would have been.

I disagree about JP. I am 99% convinced that child is his. She looks exactly like JP. I saw the resemblance immediately, down to the left droopy eye. NC was saying something negative about him, he claims he doesn't remember. What was that all about? This was a lead that needed to be investigated thoroughly.

I disagree about financial pressure. He made decent money and his income would have continued to go up. He knew that.
 
I think the Google search may have been found before arrest. Not totally sure on that, but I think so.

I would love to have confirmation on this one way or another because I recall it was late '09? Does anyone know?
 
Until we hear from the jury (if we do), we won't know for sure how 'big' the google search was, but my guess is that it was a 'swing factor'. Anyone else think they would have convicted if that were off the table?

For discussion purposes, if state had entered evidence of the router being in the home on 7/11, I wonder if that would have served as an adequate 'smoking gun' as well.

Sure, the defense might have refuted it (claim it was 'disposed of', claim it was 'returned', claim the logs indicating presence of router were 'planted' too)...but I'm not sure how effective they would have been.

I'm just wondering whether folks still on the fence (or, not convinced the state met the burden) would change position if evidence of the router being present in the home on 7/11 was established.
 
Until we hear from the jury (if we do), we won't know for sure how 'big' the google search was, but my guess is that it was a 'swing factor'. Anyone else think they would have convicted if that were off the table?

For discussion purposes, if state had entered evidence of the router being in the home on 7/11, I wonder if that would have served as an adequate 'smoking gun' as well.

Sure, the defense might have refuted it (claim it was 'disposed of', claim it was 'returned', claim the logs indicating presence of router were 'planted' too)...but I'm not sure how effective they would have been.

I'm just wondering whether folks still on the fence (or, not convinced the state met the burden) would change position if evidence of the router being present in the home on 7/11 was established.

I had him at guilty before the google search came in. MOO
 
I personally don't see the divorce as motive for murder. There are some relationships where the spouse is very controlling and won't let their spouse leave or divorce them and things get volatile. They won't let them go. (If I can't have you no one can, type of thing). I don't see indication of that in their marriage so I don't see the divorce as motive.

Read the ex-girlfriend's affidavit for a clue as to his behavior the last time someone tried to leave him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
2,434
Total visitors
2,599

Forum statistics

Threads
590,025
Messages
17,929,153
Members
228,041
Latest member
Rainydaze17
Back
Top