April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good Afternoon ALL Websleuthers~~ Hope everyone is having a splendid Easter Weekend:great:

I have been reading to try and catchup..and I have to admit, even me....the one who is able to compartmentalize things..is having dreams about some of this testimony..Yikes...Does that mean I should stop reading, posting, and watching this trial????... Yowza..Maybe not...It sure is keeping my higher brain aworking and have been told thats a good thing to do in aging brains:floorlaugh:

Quik question~~ Anybody know justwhat the "Google" witness is suppose to testify about?...Trying to figure it out whether it will be good or bad for either side in this case????:waitasec:
 
I had the cutest beagle terrier once....Molly B. Her legs were longer than the usual rabbit chaser, so she had a hard time keeping her nose to the ground, but that beagle howl was so exciting. So cute.
 
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!

That was brilliant! :)
 
Good Afternoon ALL Websleuthers~~ Hope everyone is having a splendid Easter Weekend:great:

I have been reading to try and catchup..and I have to admit, even me....the one who is able to compartmentalize things..is having dreams about some of this testimony..Yikes...Does that mean I should stop reading, posting, and watching this trial????... Yowza..Maybe not...It sure is keeping my higher brain aworking and have been told thats a good thing to do in aging brains:floorlaugh:

Quik question~~ Anybody know justwhat the "Google" witness is suppose to testify about?...Trying to figure it out whether it will be good or bad for either side in this case????:waitasec:

And happy Easter weekend to you! I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who has had dreams about this trial/testimony! Yikes!
 
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.

~~~

I agree that many posters type opinions as proven facts. I also believe that your words fit that description to a "t". IMO and with all due respect.
 
stopped talking about what she was wearing that is.....in July 2008.
then *his* story changed to didn't know what she was wearing, maybe last saw her in white T-shirt and shorts, IIRC....in October 2008

Was that another oops moment? Sure doesn't allay suspicions if one is investigating the case and trying to rule out the spouse.
 
And happy Easter weekend to you! I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who has had dreams about this trial/testimony! Yikes!

Happy Easter FD. No, I suspect many of us have dreams of this trial. Hope you have a great weekend.
 
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.

Both of Amanda Lambs books I found to be very interesting, and written from the viewpoint of the victim/s. Incidentally, isn't WebSleuths supposedly 'victim oriented' too? AL's books had lots of details not given in any other venue. Lots of details about Ann Miller and lots of details about the killer of SB, Drew Plantan (sp?). Her books are well documented, well written, and I look forward to this next one and hope upon hope she writes one on the Jason Young case.
 
Good Afternoon ALL Websleuthers~~ Hope everyone is having a splendid Easter Weekend:great:

I have been reading to try and catchup..and I have to admit, even me....the one who is able to compartmentalize things..is having dreams about some of this testimony..Yikes...Does that mean I should stop reading, posting, and watching this trial????... Yowza..Maybe not...It sure is keeping my higher brain aworking and have been told thats a good thing to do in aging brains:floorlaugh:

Quik question~~ Anybody know justwhat the "Google" witness is suppose to testify about?...Trying to figure it out whether it will be good or bad for either side in this case????:waitasec:

I wish I knew regarding the google witness...you would think it would be a witness called by the prosecution. It makes me wonder...either the defense will have them on because they cannot completely confirm the Fielding Dr search, or they can refute it with testimony. Should be very interesting in the least.
 
stopped talking about what she was wearing that is.....in July 2008. ~Respectfully snipped~

That is not what happened, according to Det. Daniels' notes. It's what he testified to on direct (and so did Det. Young IIRC), but if you listen the cross on his testimony, that is not what Det. Daniels notes said. BC did NOT only talk about the red and black sports bra and then stop talking.
 
I think the one thing the prosecution has beyond a doubt, that there can be no argument about, is the deposition video AS did with BC. (I don't want to start a debate about where she got her questions...just saying. So let me get to my point.)

When I first read that separation agreement, I was pretty shocked, because before the financial infomation was presented, in the beginning language, it goes into detail as to how they will live separate and private lives, can't snoop or try to find out what is going on, harass each other, etc. In my divorce, the separation agreement was child support with a little alimony, cusotdy arrangements, and who would take what cars and live where. It was pretty cut and dried. We did not go into eventual assets, and spell out the nitty gritty. That was for the divorce. And it was advised by any attorneys i spoke with that separation was not a time to necessarily hit the dating scene,etc., because this information could be called into question later.

I was really shocked, because i felt like this read as a divorce agreement, and when working those out, yes you toss back and forth offers and negotiate. But for a separation agreement, particularly in a contentious and volatile environment, the first order of business is to just set some basics, and get the two people away from each other to de-escalate. (And usually assets are frozen as well, so the splitting can be dealt with later, without needing to specify what will be done when separating.) I wonder if this was AS's doing, or NC's?
 
Good Saturday afternoon everybody. I got behind on Thursday and again yesterday afternoon/last night. Just now got caught up on here. No good place to jump in with any of the ongoing discussions so I have been simply reading--nodding with some posts, not with others. The technology about the cell phone(s) and computer evidence are still confusing to me. Other little pieces of evidence, like the missing sticks and ducks, just jump out. It's a very difficult case because of having no hard evidence like DNA, fingerprints, etc.
I will forever think that Brad is guilty even if the evidence isn't there to prove it.
Hope each of you has a terrific Easter weekend!
 
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 don't think the money accusations about Nancy are fair in any way. Yes, people can make do with $300 a month, and she had $300 a week. I suspect that she was buying groceries out of that, and whatever was leftover was hers to do with as she pleased. But groceries for 4 will set you back a ways, and expendable income left over isn't going to be huge.

The point about the $300 is that nobody has ever asked Brad what HIS expendable income was, per week. Nobody has asked Brad to account for HIS spending during the time he had Nancy's curtailed. They were supposed to be equal partners in a marriage. If Brad wanted to play golf, he could. The money was all his. Nancy, lacking a work visa, had no options.

I'm sorry, but if you're working on rebuilding your marriage, you're going to view your partner as an equal. You're going to compromise. You're not going to take things for yourself (having your own money to do with as you please) and not give your spouse the same rights, especially if she has no way of legally earning her own income.

It's not about the amount. It's about marriage being a partnership, not about treating your wife like she's an irresponsible teenager. When Brad's spending is accounted for during the months of April - July, then maybe there'd be more comparison to be made.
 
<snipped for length>
The point about the $300 is that nobody has ever asked Brad what HIS expendable income was, per week. Nobody has asked Brad to account for HIS spending during the time he had Nancy's curtailed. They were supposed to be equal partners in a marriage. If Brad wanted to play golf, he could. The money was all his. Nancy, lacking a work visa, had no options.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Marriage should be a partnership. But Alice did ask BC during the deposition what his portion of the income leftover was. BC stated (so, I know some of you will discount it), is that after ALL the bills were paid, NC got 90% of what was left over. Out of that 1,200 a month she paid gas and groceries and whatever was left over was for her. So, he got 10% of the leftovers after the bill, because he had less groceries to buy, and perhaps less gas?

I think you can argue they both spent freely before they went on a budget. But it would be unfair to argue that he continued to spend freely after NC went on a budget. Then again, we haven't been privy to any financial records in this case yet. I hope this makes sense.
 
That is not what happened, according to Det. Daniels' notes. It's what he testified to on direct (and so did Det. Young IIRC), but if you listen the cross on his testimony, that is not what Det. Daniels notes said. BC did NOT only talk about the red and black sports bra and then stop talking.

That was the understanding that I got from his testimony as well. He indicated that Brad stopped talking about the clothing abruptly after saying that about the sports bra. I did not get the impression that he stopped talking all together. I do remember the question, something about "are you sure it's her?"
 
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Marriage should be a partnership. But Alice did ask BC during the deposition what his portion of the income leftover was. BC stated (so, I know some of you will discount it), is that after ALL the bills were paid, NC got 90% of what was left over. Out of that 1,200 a month she paid gas and groceries and whatever was left over was for her. So, he got 10% of the leftovers after the bill, because he had less groceries to buy, and perhaps less gas?

I think you can argue they both spent freely before they went on a budget. But it would be unfair to argue that he continued to spend freely after NC went on a budget. Then again, we haven't been privy to any financial records in this case yet. I hope this makes sense.

It does make sense. But until the financial records are made public, there is no valid way to slam judgments down on Nancy...everyone is left having to take the word of a man who finds it in his best interests to make his dead wife sound greedy and irresponsible.
 
I meant he stopped identifying what clothes she was wearing in July, when questioned by detective. My bad.
AS did more than a full day's work in October, and he talked and talked and talked for hours.
 
I don't think the money accusations about Nancy are fair in any way. Yes, people can make do with $300 a month, and she had $300 a week. I suspect that she was buying groceries out of that, and whatever was leftover was hers to do with as she pleased. But groceries for 4 will set you back a ways, and expendable income left over isn't going to be huge.

The point about the $300 is that nobody has ever asked Brad what HIS expendable income was, per week. Nobody has asked Brad to account for HIS spending during the time he had Nancy's curtailed. They were supposed to be equal partners in a marriage. If Brad wanted to play golf, he could. The money was all his. Nancy, lacking a work visa, had no options.

I'm sorry, but if you're working on rebuilding your marriage, you're going to view your partner as an equal. You're going to compromise. You're not going to take things for yourself (having your own money to do with as you please) and not give your spouse the same rights, especially if she has no way of legally earning her own income.

It's not about the amount. It's about marriage being a partnership, not about treating your wife like she's an irresponsible teenager. When Brad's spending is accounted for during the months of April - July, then maybe there'd be more comparison to be made.

Well said! And I think it becomes a real problem when the amount of $300 per week is debated as the issue in itself. When you take the allowance and add it to the entire picture: water turned off, coincidentally, she is cut off from all credit cards and bank accounts simultaneously without foreknowledge, he takes her cell phone away for a day or two, takes passports, doesn't comply with getting her a greeen card so she can work, won't leave the house, won't let her leave, continues to spy on her and what she does....That is what makes the situation problematic. Yes, these things do happen in divorces. And i guess the lesson to be learned, if there is any, is that none of that should be more important than your peace of mind.

People have said she could have left, and I think she was planning on it. But when emotions get high, and the focus is on irrational behavior, it is hard to think clearly. I am sure on a day to day basis, she was so obsessed with being angry that she had little time to be practical and just do something. I think by her actions, she was perhaps realizing this, and getting to that point where she was going to do something.....she just ran out or time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
4,124
Total visitors
4,214

Forum statistics

Threads
593,088
Messages
17,981,148
Members
229,023
Latest member
Clueliz
Back
Top