Not sure if you may be referring to what I posted last night while I was quite exhausted...but here it is for anyone who may want to read...
This kind of thing is where I have an issue. If BC is guilty, he's brilliant. He somehow:
1) Killed NC without any evidence left in the home (and not to be graphic, but death is messy)
2) For a guy who did not care about a clean house, he became the world's best clean-up guy.
3) He somehow managed to make a call from the home to himself, but left no trace whatsoever of how he routed this call.
4) He went to the grocery store twice seeming completely cool and collected.
5) In spite of a neighborhood where everyone seemed nosy, and it being a weekend where people were up late/at a party, no one noticed him putting a body in the trunk and leaving young children in the middle of the night.
6) No one noticed him driving down a major road.
7) He removed the license plate so not to be traced...yet no one noticed a car without a license plate.
8) Again, no one saw BC furiously cleaning out the garage, removing and reattaching license plates
9) Now he was planting stuff on NC's mobile...even though he had no training or experience in mobile technology.
10) He was able to hand over the mobile immediately to LE, and magically predicted a detective would continually (10X!) put in the wrong code and wipe the phone.
It just doesn't pass the sniff test....
A very good list, but it leaves me at least still sniffing, for reasons as follows:
1) sometimes strangling isn't too messy. One I worked on personally a guy strangled a girl (in High Point), put her in the trunk of her car, and went back to the bar where he had picked her up. No one noticed a thing about him, where he had killed her, or even the car. I think sometimes, it just doesn't generate much evidence. That by itself does not mean of course BC did it. Strangers strangle, and did in the very same case I'm referencing.
2) here I would say b/c he was in fact suddenly motivated.
3) a good point.
4) granted but killers often maintain cool - see 1). plus, he was out very early, twice, the morning of the dumping.
5) good point. but, he did in fact leave twice to go to the store and was undetected with that apparently so I think that does not cut either way.
6) same as 5)
7) if the state says he did that, then lame. he'd be more noticable w/o a plate, I agree with you.
8) i wouldn't be surprised if the neighbors didn't notice someone inside a garage.
9) i don't believe he did that. and i don't believe he deleted it either. i put that on CPD.
10) agree that is silly. which is why i don't believe he messed with the phone. if anything, the defense probably hoped it showed evidence of other relationships, which might be helpful to their case. very bad screw up by CPD.