April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are referring to me, I have not gone anywhere. I have been posting regularly tonight since I made that post about next week. I made a followup post when I first noticed "concerns" about me.
Ah, but of course if you really knew some inside information, you would say that you don't know inside information. And, you know that we know that if you had inside information you wouldn't come back, so you came back so that we won't know that you know what we don't know. :hand:
 
I really wish you guys would listen to the actual testimony, because it has changed through all of the detectives who were at the same conversation. The first detective (who was undercover, and only those in the courtroom have the whole testimony), couldn't remember the question asked, only that the answer he wrote down was red and black sports bra. It doesn't indicate anywhere in his notes that BC gave that answer, it's just doodled on the side of his notes.

The second detective present (Daniels) had a list of 5-6 articles of clothing, including a blue and white striped shirt, black shorts, running skirts, a red top and a black sports bra. He wrote these down when BC responded to a specific question, "do you know what she might have been wearing?"

He did not just blurt out "she wore a red and black sports bra" when they told him the body had been found, as many here have originally posited. That is inaccurate, and not consistent with the testimony out of the detectives own mouths.

According to Det. D's testimony, there were two times when Brad mentioned sports of a specific color. The first was the one you are describing when asked what she might have been wearing and the second was when Brad said something about a red and black sports bra and just stopped after saying that. MOO
 
Good morning everybody. I see the chat was prolific last night.

Yes, and regardless of opinions, no one was snarky last night. Everyone got along fine without the usual sniping. Wonder what that means?:waitasec:
 
Why wouldn't Amanda Lamb write a book about one of the most polarizing criminal trials in this area? Everybody is trying to make a buck! She's has the right to free speech too.
Surely, this trial will be over by December 2011. and then there is the appeal.....book II,
movie sequel.....this trial has got lots of attention in Social Media.
I see no problem with her writing whatever she wants to write. However, the problem is with WRAL having her reporting on the trial. If she is going to report on it, either she or the anchor who introduces her stories should be saying "In the interest of full disclosure, we must inform you that this reporter has a financial interest in the defendant being found guilty and is personal friends with prosecution witnesses".
 
Still, can't blame AL for writing about one of the most polarizing trials in this area.
Non-fiction vs. fiction. I guess the publishers decided if it had merit. Doesn't really matter. she has right to free speech too. Don't you wish you had that idea and wrote it first?
 
Thank you. Was this in the same time frame as Nancy?

Nowhere near where Nancy Cooper was. She was out very early in the morning, and there was a witness, suspect sketch, and she was stabbed to death.
 
Don't we all know that television stations are owned and what we see on TV has a slant.
I thought that was common knowledge.
 
Still, can't blame AL for writing about one of the most polarizing trials in this area.
Non-fiction vs. fiction. I guess the publishers decided if it had merit. Doesn't really matter. she has right to free speech too. Don't you wish you had that idea and wrote it first?

Nope! And it's not an original idea. AL writes about every middle-class murder in the area. Rest assured, the book on the Jason Young trial is to come.
 
Isn't it all about getting ratings.....and making money....getting advertisers. I think that is no grand revelation.
 
I've been following this case on-and-off since the beginning. I was firmly in the "Brad=guilty" group since day 1, but just this week have been thinking that the prosecution hasn't proved it at all, and I don't think I would be able to find him guilty if I was on the jury based on the evidence.
Before I get beat on, just a few random thoughts:

*As a woman who has been isolated by a husband and kept short of money for nefarious purposes, I feel as if I have to speak out against those who put NC in that group. Nancy was in no way a poor isolated wife. Her allowance was larger then many entire families income, including what they pay for rent and other bills. While I have heard testimony that she didn't get that allowance in the last week of her life, I have not heard any that said that she regularly didn't get the money. It appears Brad "paid up" fairly regularly up to that point. I wish I had $300 a week to spend as I pleased, hell, I've had to buy groceries, paper products, ect on $300 a month and been ok. No sympathy here for Nancy in regards to her money situation. I really don't think you'll be getting any from the jury either. Even in regards to the last week of her life when she didn't get her "allowance", if you are in a volitile relationship with a soon to be ex, where you are arguing and fighting on a daily basis...if you don't realize that with-holding money isn't going to occur (heck, I can't believe it didn't come up before, that would be a good "warfare" tactic of his, hers being with her sharp tongue, his with the checkbook), and prepare. If she couldn't save $50 or $100 a week and sock it away for when he would play this game...that says alot about her and her issues with money.

*The testimony regarding the affairs is damaging, more so for NC, as unfair as that is. Not because she is a woman, but because she is dead in a suspicious manner. The defense doesn't have to prove someone else killed her, it just has to show evidence that she had a pattern of secretive extra-marital affairs. The fact that Brad also had them, could be seen as more proof of SODDI, as it is just more people who may have reason to want NC dead (although who would want Brad bad enough to kill for him is hard to imagine)

*I hate reading about Brad not loving his children, or only wanting them to avoid paying child support. I believe Brad is a major *advertiser censored**hole who more likely then not killed his wife, BUT I believe the carefully constructed facade of his being neglectful of his children is half male carelessness and the other half NC creation. She was known for embellishment. I know men who wouldn't watch their small children, even for their wife to run to the grocery. I know men who would rather get a root canal then play with their children in swimming pools. These men (including my father) are good parents, they just have difficulty knowing how to interact with SMALL children. They may get better as the children get older. BC doesn't strike me as a particularly affectionate or demonstrative man, but I just don't have any doubt he loved his children dearly BASED ON THE EVIDENCE in regards to the actual interactions in testimony and in discovery.

What do I think? I know you don't care :crazy: but I do think he killed her. I think it was a perfect storm. While I refuse to blame the victim, I do believe NC helped create the storm, and I also think she sensed she was doing it. The sleeping fully dressed and barricading the door (and you know, I don't believe that was a regular thing. I think that may have occurred once or twice, and then she just liked the sound of it so continued it to explain how much danger she was in, danger she could sense but did not truly believe how bad it really was) and other comments she let drop that she knew that Brad killing her was a possibilty. The idea that she couldn't leave is a ridiculous one to me, she was not leaving because she was following the lawyers advice, and she wanted to make sure she didn't walk away "losing". But did she want to be right and "win" or did she want to be alive and safe? She saw what was inside Brad. I believe she sensed that he could be pushed to murder her, and in some way she was afraid. Yet, she covered it up and just continued on, screaming at him about money, mocking him in front of other people, pushing, pushing, pushing.

I believe she knew he was capable of this, and yet she thought it would never happen to her.
I also think the jurors may find him innocent if we don't get any better evidence.
Unfortunately, the wiped phone may be what lets him go.
I learned in "Sociology of Murder" (best class ever!) which went into victimology and juror bias that black women jurors are more likely then any other gender group to believe the police are corrupt and lying.
(While I have it in my text, I did find this article which discusses it:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1997/02/24/1997_02_24_054_TNY_CARDS_000376407 )

This has gone on way too long, and I'm sure I'll be thrown from the forums for these opinions LOL, so back to lurking.

I for one appreciate your opinion on this case. Your post shows great insight and depth of understanding. I am sure you won't get tossed for such well founded and provocative information. I have similar views that you have and do not think the prosecution has proven their case yet inspite of the google map. Thanks again for posting here.
 
The invalid timestamps have now morphed into "modified timestamps". I don't know that evidence has been given that the time was modified. An invalid timestamp can occur if the time on the server a computer is accessing is incorrect. It isn't always something on the computer itself. I personally only got to see a document that showed two files; the two cursor files. Last night was the first time I became aware that there were 500 files. Information on all the files would have been helpful. Also, and I don't know the answer to this, if a person attempts to delete a record of a search like this and removes a file but through a forensic search the experts are able to find the search still on there, could that deleted file have caused invalid timestamps?

Many things are morphing here lately. There are posters who post things as *facts* that should be qualified with MO IMO. It's been brought to my attention in the last couple days as 'being different than other cases discussed on WS' I didn't realize it because I'm new, and this is my first case to follow here. But others have pointed out to me that statements are being made here, and accepted as fact, when in fact they aren't FACTS, they are OPINIONS.
 
We have had a plethora of wife killers, I'd bet more than the national average for an area the size of Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill.

I had 3 rules for my daughters when they were getting married:
1. You may not marry anyone with the last name "Peterson"
2. You may not move to North Carolina
3. You may not honeymoon in Aruba

So far, so good!
 
And stating misleading statements as facts and hammering away, like it will soon get the house built, hoping that house of cards won't fall down.
 
It didn't have to be a serial killer.

So what was it then? It wasn't a robbery, unless some homeless person needed two left shoes, under pants, shorts & a tank top. It wasn't a rape, raping a live strong woman would have left defensive wounds and abrasions to the genital area. Bug person said there were none, or bugs would have found them. It wasn't a shooting, car jacking, it fit nor fits any other crimes in this area in the preceeding ten years, nor does it fit any crimes since. The only crimes this fits are the plethora of *other* wife killings in this area.
 
So what was it then? It wasn't a robbery, unless some homeless person needed two left shoes, under pants, shorts & a tank top. It wasn't a rape, raping a live strong woman would have left defensive wounds and abrasions to the genital area. Bug person said there were none, or bugs would have found them. It wasn't a shooting, car jacking, it fit nor fits any other crimes in this area in the preceeding ten years, nor does it fit any crimes since. The only crimes this fits are the plethora of *other* wife killings in this area.

Why do you think Nancy went running with two left shoes, or that ANYONE has ever argued that? There were two individual shoes that were missing. Both were much smaller than NC currently wore. Both were different colors. Neither were on the shelf with the rest of the shoes when the detectives search the house.

Instead, why wouldn't it make sense that the pair of shoes that were never recovered were the pair she tentatively would have worn? You know, the Saucony's in her size. The pair that was second newest. The pair that the detectives tried to find a return for, and couldn't? The pair she was seen wearing in the Turkey Trot picture?
 
Who's so gullible to believe misleading statements, no matter how many times repeated, when the facts speak for themselves? Why bother hammering away at what is so easily disputed by the facts in the trial? Just doesn't make sense to me....for a sight that is devoted to solving crimes and discussing facts.
 
I took my 3 month old Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier to the vet yesterday for shots. A basset hound came in and he did a couple of those short howly woofs and Aidan turned tail and headed for the exit.

I picked him up and the basset hound howl-woofed a few more times.

Despite my having been trying to get Aidan to howl (for fun), he would have none of it. This morning, he has been howling to kick off the puppy zoomies -- I am his prey. I think the basset hound finally broke through the no-howl barrier!

I attached a photo of Aidan moments after he figured out how to get onto the dining room table -- he is cute, but looks are deceiving; we should have named him Jaws.

OMG, he's adorable! I have so much wanted a little dog for such a long time now. I've always had big dogs, but I really want a little fella. Seems like every dog we find that really needs a home is a big one. Somebody keep their eye out for a little shaggy one for me. Make an album so we can see more pictures. :) One of our daughter next-door to us dogs, never barks, only howls. She's the off-spring of a rescued stray, and we've been told she has part wolf in her. She howls like 'Call of the Wild'. :seeya:
 
Wonder if there are other cases with key computer evidence that are getting a second look by defense attorneys regarding possible tampering with files.
 
And stating misleading statements as facts and hammering away, like it will soon get the house built, hoping that house of cards won't fall down.

Are you referring to misleading statements passed off as facts--like the "fact" that BC said Nancy was wearing a red and black sports bra and then stopped talking? How about the "fact" that Nancy's earrings were screw backs? Or the "fact" that someone on the board lied when they said HP contacted the CPD to add that detail to her statement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
2,486
Total visitors
2,612

Forum statistics

Threads
594,098
Messages
17,999,068
Members
229,310
Latest member
Carolinabluemoon
Back
Top