2011.05.04 Verdict Watch

[otto]

Hi otto! Looong time co-posting, eh? My confusion. He changed his shoes - and the clothes he had were never found. I go lame with repetition and assume folk will follow on. Tks for clarifying!

No. I don't think NC bought one box detergent for 7 weeks. I was thinking outside the box to extend the time line. Lets go back 7 weeks. NC buys detergent for a month (up until she and kids go on vac for 2 weeks). That's 6 weeks. BC only did his own laundry washing ... NC wouldn't have had to cover for him ... he'd at least buy his own detergent, right?

In the week after she's back (now we're @ 7 weeks - which is when a poster stated testimony effected last time detergent bought was 7 weeks earlier) the place is a disaster zone. Fuelled by her husband's uncleanliness, their moods hype up to nano-proportions on the emotional-richter-scale. NC calls her family and complains bitterly. BC slouches and does nothing.

If there was any time for him to appease NC (can't see it, tho) it would have surely been the day after NC got back once she fussed over the state of the place. But he didn't. He suddenly goes in Mr. Cleanit-Mode Saturday am where there's absolutely no sign on his wife. Why? And his car trunk only cleaned? Why? Why when he was supposed to play tennis? Then he was working. Then e was supposedly taking the kids to attractions?

Too busy a schedule and too convenient a wash (out) .... but all IMO.

Edited in: confused about the dress is also a very weak and insipid argument (not from you - from BC). Funny that. Because he clearly remembered the alleged stain on front of teal dress; he stated NC had pointed it out to him at the party. No-one else noticed this - NC told showed no-one else, either. NC/BC were not harmonious, NC dissed him at the party - not discussing stains in a chitty-chatty "ooops, look" fashion ... BC made a point of washing it and explaining clearly why to CPD. Suddenly he's "confused"? No. That's another inconsistent coincidence that's just way outta line. Too many "answers" for BC and there's nothing NC can respond with or to, sadly.

Other than a peripheral interest in this case, I started following this case at the start of the trial. I am not up to speed with all the gossip and rumor from 2008. Are you saying that the clothes that he was wearing the morning he was buying green juice were never found? Was that court testimony or rumor?

So a box of laundry detergent lasts a month in their house, Nancy went on vacation when they were out of detergent, Brad didn't buy detergent ... fast forward 3 weeks ... on the following Friday Nancy sent Brad out to buy laundry detergent at 6 in the morning. It seems she often sent him out at odd hours to buy milk and bananas, juice and detergent.

Are nano-proportions like nannerisms?

Nancy got back on the Monday or Sunday, and Brad was doing laundry and cleaning like a maniac on Friday. That could be him feeling like he's in the doghouse, and maybe he's trying to cover up a murder.

Without a timeline of when he was asked about the dress and when he talked about the dress spill, it's hard to say what he should know about the color of the dress. It's Brad's testimony that while they were at the party she told him that she spilled something on the dress, but it sounds like it wasn't noticable. No one else at the party noticed the spill on her patterned dress and he couldn't remember the color of the dress.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Wow. Stunning post up there, Bottle Cap. Agree 100%. Control.

 

[BrownRice]

But it's possible she had acrylic or gel nails from a salon, no? Which would leave nice red patches or marks on his neck, but maybe not a definitive scratch. My sweet hubby is all disappointed now because he likes to have his back scratched and now it's not the same, the nails are just too thick and dull and don't give that good scratchy feeling.

Nah, the acrylic/gel nails aren't really "in" with her demographic.

 

[BrownRice]

That's a hard one.. we could argue a lot of different points. Maybe she bought the 5 gallon of it to save money, we usually buy our paint that way. If she really liked the color maybe she bought that much and thought she would just use it later on.

In the same thought, maybe they had so much left over they decided why not paint the dining room so it's not wasted.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Other than a peripheral interest in this case, I started following this case at the start of the trial. I am not up to speed with all the gossip and rumor from 2008. Are you saying that the clothes that he was wearing the morning he was buying green juice were never found? Was that court testimony or rumor?

So a box of laundry detergent lasts a month in their house, Nancy went on vacation when they were out of detergent, Brad didn't buy detergent ... fast forward 3 weeks ... on the following Friday Nancy sent Brad out to buy laundry detergent at 6 in the morning. It seems she often sent him out at odd hours to buy milk and bananas, juice and detergent.

Are nano-proportions like nannerisms?

Nancy got back on the Monday or Sunday, and Brad was doing laundry and cleaning like a maniac on Friday. That could be him feeling like he's in the doghouse, and maybe he's trying to cover up a murder.

Without a timeline of when he was asked about the dress and when he talked about the dress spill, it's hard to say what he should know about the color of the dress. It's Brad's testimony that while they were at the party she told him that she spilled something on the dress, but it sounds like it wasn't noticable. No one else at the party noticed the spill on her patterned dress and he couldn't remember the color of the dress.

LOL ... nano-proportions is a Polk-word.

Yes, they musta been outta detergent that week to necessitate more at an unearthly hour. No ... not Friday ---> BC was only cleaning like a maniac on SATURDAY 7/12 ... while NC was missing - after she apparently left for a 7am jog. He'd only bought the detergent earlier that morning.

He claimed NC showed him the stain at the party. But they were not civil to one another; according to friends - she'd have shown others .... or hopped over the road to change if it was that bad. If the stain was not visible, why would she even fuss over it - especially not to her hate-mode hubby. (Of course this stain nonsense is all outta BC's mouth. No-one else said as much).

The shoes in the HT cctv have never been identified or found; The shoes he wore later were different; ditto the clothes he wore that morning. Gone. Why? Where are these items? Have to ask BC.

 

[otto]

I have to disagree with you here. What you describe is a stereotype. If this stereotype was as consistent as you seem to believe, DV would be less and less an issue because everyone would be able to identify those people who were experiencing it. You simply cannot tell from the outside looking in. There is no "one" way a controlling relationship plays out.

IMO, NC was an accessory as were the children. As long as she was accessorizing his life and not causing him too much trouble, he was able to keep the image that the ex-girlfriend said he was so concerned about. The image was important, but it was also important that he be able to have his "other" life too - the one that consisted of work days, MBA classes, followed by late night workouts at the gym. Somewhere in there, he fit in HM and time to kick around ideas for the future with women from other countries.

NC was controlled inasmuch as she adhered to BC's vision of what their life should be. If she ran, if she socialized, it was no skin off his back. She didn't have expensive hair or nails, she didn't wear couture, their house wasn't filled with custom-made anything. The kids were well looked after. They had a semblance of a social life, thanks to her. That was her job.

What her job was NOT to do was get uppity and want anything to change. What her job was NOT to do was to want to work; to want to know about his affair with HM. What her job was NOT to do was disagree with him in front of people. Her job was NOT to want to have a life as she saw fit in light of the state of the marriage. Her job was certainly not to leave and have BC fund her new life given that her green card was still non-existent.

He had her over a barrel. She couldn't go home with the kids where she could work and support herself. She couldn't move out without a signed separation agreement giving her some means of support. Her only option at that point, if she didn't want to forfeit her children, was to sit tight and keep up the game. Live the life BC envisioned for her.

Control isn't necessary until someone needs controlling.

We know what Nancy wanted, but it was not reasonable according to the law. It was not reasonable for her to expect that she could take the children of the family and leave the country. There are laws to protect parents from this possibility - pretty much in every country. Her parents gave her $7500 at least. Why could she not take some portion of that, pay rent and damage deposit on a small apartment, and continue to work with her lawyer who would only have a $5000 retainer or a $2500 retainer? What entrapment prevented Nancy from using the $7500 to make change? It's my understanding that Nancy gave $7500 to the lawyer and then sort of forgot about it for 3-4 months.

 

[Prentiss]

Bottlecap - Well done!

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

 

[WolfpackWoman]

I can understand that Brad isn't getting enough sun, but he looked like he hasn't been outdoors in months. I hope his mom is bringing him some vit D.

He hasn't been outdoors since October 2008. They don't even go outdoors to come from the jail to the courthouse. There's a tunnel under the road.

 

[BrownRice]

He hasn't been outdoors since October 2008. They don't even go outdoors to come from the jail to the courthouse. There's a tunnel under the road.

I thought prisoners are allowed 1 hr a day outside - or is that just prison?

 

[RPD]

I thought prisoners are allowed 1 hr a day outside - or is that just prison?

There is nowhere to go 'outside'.
The Wake County jail is a high-rise in the middle of downtown.

 

[Danielle59]

Bold, red: mine

Interesting, WPW .... If we backdate the time line 7 weeks - NC may have done her monthly shop of detergent 4 weeks before going on 2 week vac with her family. We know Brad was an untidy slob - did absolutely zero cleaning and was so bad, in fact, that NC had to call in pest-control folk during the week she was back. Circa 7 weeks since last purchase ... makes reasonable and valid sense to me.

Suddenly, on the day/early morning NC disappers, BC's out buying laundry detergent before dawn ... changes his clothes between shop visits - and then proceeds to do a zillion washes? While his wife is missing? When he's not known to be "clean"? And when CPD ask for the dress - BC confuses its color? But washes it because he saw a stain and only hands it over clean? But he didn't wash the clothes HE was wearing? They just flew into cyber-space? Vanished?

THAT stain on NC's dress that BC described may have been critical evidence. BC purposely did what he did. The more I read and am reminded of these issues the more I am convinced, in my opinion, that BC is guilty of this crime.

Why would he do all of the above? It's nonsensical. Goes to cover-up, denial & deception. Rings loud and clear to me. How could these things just all happen so quickly in succession to one unfortunate VOip, CCIE, PhD, controlling, hate-ridden, revengeful and silent, email-snooping husband?

Oh, I know ... he was set-up. That's it! Framed by CPD in advance (had to be), There is no such thing as a coincidence in murder. Way too many with BC, IMO.

Methinks the BDDI's are too ready and eager to explain away every inconsistency.

I bolded some items, these are my replies to them in order:

1. We don't know Brad did zero cleaning
2. Pest control said that the house was always messy, he also, and most importantly said all they had was some ants. That is nothing like NC's "nannerism" on the phone message. Didn't you find it funny when the Exterminator outted her as telling a lie; when she called him she said she was waiting in line at the store, but he was closer than expected to their house and drove right over and lo and behold, she hadn't even left the house yet, she was just putting the kids in the car to leave to go to the store. Hardly waiting in line at it.
3. I don't believe he changed his clothes between the store visits, he wore a different pair of shoes.
4. You are implying his body was not clean in that remark, I don't recall anyone saying he was stinky? Did I miss that?
5. He recalled the color of the dress she had on earlier, even her friends could not recall the color of the dress the night before and they spent much more time with her. We have had this conversation so many times, it is really not a big deal he didn't recall the color of the dress she had on the night before. Her dress was not hidden on July 12.
6. The lab person said the dress did not appear washed.
7. He is not a Ph.D.
8. I don't agree he was "controlling, hate-ridden, revengeful" I think that is embellishment.

I think if there is a real case then exaggerations aren't necessary, the truth should be adequate.

 

[Bottle Cap]

We know what Nancy wanted, but it was not reasonable according to the law. It was not reasonable for her to expect that she could take the children of the family and leave the country. There are laws to protect parents from this possibility - pretty much in every country. Her parents gave her $7500 at least. Why could she not take some portion of that, pay rent and damage deposit on a small apartment, and continue to work with her lawyer who would only have a $5000 retainer or a $2500 retainer? What entrapment prevented Nancy from using the $7500 to make change? It's my understanding that Nancy gave $7500 to the lawyer and then sort of forgot about it for 3-4 months.

A. She was advised by AS not to move out.
B. She apparently had decided (as evidenced by the phone call to the realtor) to ignore this advice and move out anyway. Why this might be is speculation, but IMO it has to do with her watching the house the night of July 11 to see when the lights went out.
c. She didn't live long enough to follow through with B.

To summarize, the biggest reason she wasn't able to move out is because she was murdered first.

 

[Danielle59]

<snip>OK - to the rest of your post ... there exists absolutely no evidence that NC's best friend killed her. If you're assuming this is JA ... what on Earth would JA gain by going to BC's house and calling police immediately? Murderers *distance* themselves from the scene and body. Unless they're serial killers with a penchant for taunting the media and police a.k.a. Dennis Radar, they would never instigate an immediate investigation. Why would JA *admit* NC was supposed to be at her house to paint at 9am? That would definitely make JA the last person to see NC. It's mere convenience, IMO, to turn the painting appointment into fiction - just to remove one coincidence from BC's gazillions.

Not for a nano-second do I believe this fantasy. If I stretched my imagination and played Devil's Advocate and it was JA or a.n.o - how the *heck* would she have managed to get NC's teal dress back in the house? How would she have taken wrong running shoes when BC was working right there (ehem - supposedly - don't 4get he took the little one in his office - all "Bradspeak" of course). With all that commotion going on with the kids crying and BC's errands to stores ... is that when you're implying JA crept in and ambushed NC as she left for her run? Then how did the ducks, sticks, rug go missing right under BC's nose? We know the last person to see NC alive was BC.

So - no opportunity.

What means would she have had? A cat fight would have been clearly visible and there was JA launching off to CPD first thing. Marks would have been seen. JA was not nearly as powerful, strong and trained up as BC and strangling someone requires immense effort. Where did she throw NC's running clothes - none of which were noted missing from NC's wardrobe? Did JA watch BC go to 2 different stores in 2 diferent sets of clothing and then follow him back, steal them to frame him?

So - no means.

And why kill NC? Because she didn't want to go through with the paint-swap-for-organizing arrangement? B/cos JA was in love with BC?

Zero motive. Just doesn't fit. And ... there are no coincidences with anyone else.

Anyone may invent reasons - but all of those reasons are speculation in some instances and pure wishful thinking in others. We know he hated her. We know he wanted out and was blindsided by the media and LE attention within 6 hours. NOT on his plan. Thereafter he bungled everything. But this talk goes in circles. It's just so totally incorrect, IMO, and certainly not fair to NC to casually bring in (any) SODDI just b/c her marriage was a disaster.
<Snip>
IMO: It's definitely big, bad, sad ole Brad :loser: badder than ole King Kong ...

BBM. Lot's of fiction, I am not sure where to start.

First this thing about changing his clothes between visits to the store, he didn't change his clothes, he changed his shoes and he didn't visit two different stores. He visited the same store twice.

She called police before going to the Cooper's. Yes, she could have been calling the police to throw them off track, we know she gave them a lot of misleading information to lead that lead the investigation astray, it is documented.

Why would JA have to bring the dress back into the house? That makes no sense even in your scenario. She also has changed the time NC was supposed to be at her house, and also changed the time she and her husband supposedly got up and people on here, the BDIers, have defended those times.

NC did have running clothes missing.

The ducks are not missing, the rug? What are you talking about?

There is so much that is not in this case that you have written above, I am not sure why.

 

[ncsu95]

Bold, red: mine

Interesting, WPW .... If we backdate the time line 7 weeks - NC may have done her monthly shop of detergent 4 weeks before going on 2 week vac with her family. We know Brad was an untidy slob - did absolutely zero cleaning and was so bad, in fact, that NC had to call in pest-control folk during the week she was back. Circa 7 weeks since last purchase ... makes reasonable and valid sense to me.

Suddenly, on the day/early morning NC disappers, BC's out buying laundry detergent before dawn ... changes his clothes between shop visits - and then proceeds to do a zillion washes? While his wife is missing? When he's not known to be "clean"? And when CPD ask for the dress - BC confuses its color? But washes it because he saw a stain and only hands it over clean? But he didn't wash the clothes HE was wearing? They just flew into cyber-space? Vanished?

THAT stain on NC's dress that BC described may have been critical evidence. BC purposely did what he did. The more I read and am reminded of these issues the more I am convinced, in my opinion, that BC is guilty of this crime.

Why would he do all of the above? It's nonsensical. Goes to cover-up, denial & deception. Rings loud and clear to me. How could these things just all happen so quickly in succession to one unfortunate VOip, CCIE, PhD, controlling, hate-ridden, revengeful and silent, email-snooping husband?

Oh, I know ... he was set-up. That's it! Framed by CPD in advance (had to be), There is no such thing as a coincidence in murder. Way too many with BC, IMO.

Methinks the BDDI's are too ready and eager to explain away every inconsistency.

Quite a bit of embelishment in this post. You don't know that Brad did "absolutely no cleaning". You don't know that Brad didn't wash the clothes "HE was wearing"? Are you talking about the clothes he was wearing on Saturday? How could he wash those while wearing them? He washed plenty of his clothes...didn't you see them on the banister? And there was testimony that she didn't wash his clothes. And now Brad has a PhD too huh?

 

[ncsu95]

Hi otto! Looong time co-posting, eh? My confusion. He changed his shoes - and the clothes he had were never found. I go lame with repetition and assume folk will follow on. Tks for clarifying!

No. I don't think NC bought one box detergent for 7 weeks. I was thinking outside the box to extend the time line. Lets go back 7 weeks. NC buys detergent for a month (up until she and kids go on vac for 2 weeks). That's 6 weeks. BC only did his own laundry washing ... NC wouldn't have had to cover for him ... he'd at least buy his own detergent, right?

In the week after she's back (now we're @ 7 weeks - which is when a poster stated testimony effected last time detergent bought was 7 weeks earlier) the place is a disaster zone. Fuelled by her husband's uncleanliness, their moods hype up to nano-proportions on the emotional-richter-scale. NC calls her family and complains bitterly. BC slouches and does nothing.

If there was any time for him to appease NC (can't see it, tho) it would have surely been the day after NC got back once she fussed over the state of the place. But he didn't. He suddenly goes in Mr. Cleanit-Mode Saturday am where there's absolutely no sign on his wife. Why? And his car trunk only cleaned? Why? Why when he was supposed to play tennis? Then he was working. Then e was supposedly taking the kids to attractions?

Too busy a schedule and too convenient a wash (out) .... but all IMO.

Edited in: confused about the dress is also a very weak and insipid argument (not from you - from BC). Funny that. Because he clearly remembered the alleged stain on front of teal dress; he stated NC had pointed it out to him at the party. No-one else noticed this - NC told showed no-one else, either. NC/BC were not harmonious, NC dissed him at the party - not discussing stains in a chitty-chatty "ooops, look" fashion ... BC made a point of washing it and explaining clearly why to CPD. Suddenly he's "confused"? No. That's another inconsistent coincidence that's just way outta line. Too many "answers" for BC and there's nothing NC can respond with or to, sadly.

I do not think it is reasonable to assume that each bought their own detergent. If anything, BC bought detergent for the household.

 

[cityslick]

I've seen political threads more tame than some of the threads of this case. Good show.

I'm still curious where the blood under her nails came from if there was no apparent broken skin on him.

Anyone expecting a verdict today? I wouldn't be surprised (I would of yesterday).

 

[RaleighNative]

Nah, the acrylic/gel nails aren't really "in" with her demographic.

I had to laugh at that post because it is soooo true. There's a definite stigma with acrylic/gel nails.

 

[cityslick]

He had her over a barrel. She couldn't go home with the kids where she could work and support herself. She couldn't move out without a signed separation agreement giving her some means of support. Her only option at that point, if she didn't want to forfeit her children, was to sit tight and keep up the game. Live the life BC envisioned for her.

Control isn't necessary until someone needs controlling.

Snipped this particular point

She did have options to leave the house that didn't require going to Canada. As did he. She could of moved in with a friend (she seemed to have a ton of them), she could of rented an apartment. She wasn't jailed in that house as many would think.

Why she didn't leave is probably something we'll never know.

 

[ncsu95]

LOL ... nano-proportions is a Polk-word.

Yes, they musta been outta detergent that week to necessitate more at an unearthly hour. No ... not Friday ---> BC was only cleaning like a maniac on SATURDAY 7/12 ... while NC was missing - after she apparently left for a 7am jog. He'd only bought the detergent earlier that morning.

He claimed NC showed him the stain at the party. But they were not civil to one another; according to friends - she'd have shown others .... or hopped over the road to change if it was that bad. If the stain was not visible, why would she even fuss over it - especially not to her hate-mode hubby. (Of course this stain nonsense is all outta BC's mouth. No-one else said as much).

The shoes in the HT cctv have never been identified or found; The shoes he wore later were different; ditto the clothes he wore that morning. Gone. Why? Where are these items? Have to ask BC.

Where is the evidence that the clothes he was wearing that morning were ever even looked for except for maybe the running shirt he had on? We know the search warrant for the shoes was in October...that's 3 months later. Why didn't they look for them on the 15th when they seized the house? They already had the HT video by then and the changing of shoes was obvious. I don't ever remember them looking for a specific pair of jeans or the pullover he was wearing. If you are going to slam him, at least be accurate about what you are slamming him about.

 

[cityslick]

BTW I think it's facinating that on a site that favors victim/prosecution, the poll shows 57-40 think the state has not proven their case, irregardless of whether you think he's innocent or guilty.