2011.05.04 Verdict Watch

[WolfpackWoman]

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.

I know exactly what you're talking about. Had my nails done once, and really hated that I could never quite scratch an itch!!

But I don't know if Nancy had gel or acrylic nails--but I think the DAs would have been able to tell from the autopsy, or the person who examined her fingernail scrapings would have made note.

 

[otto]

He paid all the monthly expenses, her $300 per week was for food for her and the children, both under five, and gas for her car. He bought his own food as testifed by AS per an email NC sent. He gave her over 80% of their remaining cash per month after bills.

I have to admit that I wasn't seeing any motive in murder to avoid child support. Hearing about some of the debt and expenses, I can see how this murder fits into a typical spousal homicide based on out of control spending with no way to stop it or get ahead of it. I can see that Brad was facing an overwhelming debt situation. He could have viewed his life has having provided for Nancy and the children, and in 2008 they were going to disappear from his life and he was going to be resonsible for all the debt and be expected to provide for them as he had in the past. We know they talked about the debt because Nancy mentioned meetings with a financial planner. The question is why nothing was done to curb the spending. I think he probably felt backed into a corner with no where to go. I think Jason Young also falls into the category of someone that couldn't see a way to manage financially (but that was because Michelle was going to take time off for the children).

Before anyone suggests I'm blaming the victim, I'm not. I'm merely coming to my own understanding of a possible motive for the murder.

 

[less0305]

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.

True - we bought extra for touch ups later on. When you have kids and family, you're always having to go back and touch up walls. I have left over paint galore - enough to do whole rooms. Red, anybody need some red paint?? I went through a red phase once. Never again, though!

 

[otto]

When I think about it more...........it's unlikey Brad would have first attacked Nancy in the foyer - too much of a risk for her to get back out of the house.

I'm predicting a verdict on Friday!

It looks like the jury is thinking something happened in the Master Bathroom.

 

[NCEast]

LOL, yes! Do it as in committing the crime.

I have to sign off soon and get some sleep. But I know now I'll be laying in bed for hours trying to &%!@* psychoanalyze that neighbor-I-shall-not-name. Trying to figure out her actions is driving me crazy! :banghead:

I don't think JA was involved in the crime. I find that a stretch too difficult to imagine although I realize there are some theorists here who think otherwise. I think she, by nature, has a very controlling personality. And with that I think she thought she was acting on behalf of Nancy, and with Nancy's best interests at heart, on the morning of July 12 and thereafter.
I am not sure I believe MH's testimony in full.
I realize that a lot of what JA told the CPD in the early stages of the disappearance/murder was not factual; however, I do believe she was acting in good faith--again, on Nancy's behalf. Much of what she stated to the detectives were based on her knowledge of what was normal or typical in Nancy's life--the passports and phone in the car, the ducks and sticks in the foyer, etc. I think she believed too much of Nancy's spew about BC, probably most of them did. But when it's all said and done, I think she was saying, doing, behaving, and addressing her concerns out of her love for her friend.

 

[SleuthSayer]

The chat log evidence was that he took the router and he would swap it out with the one he had on order. I understand why people think it was never returned. But my bigger question (not related to the trial) to that is why they ordered equipment that they never used? They ordered an $11k piece of equipment....BC took it as soon as it came in...but it was never missed. Seems like a waste of money to me.

You are overvaluing the equipment. $11K would be the list price. Most customers don't pay list price. The actual cost of goods for the equipment is about 1/5 or so of what it actually sells for. So, the internal cost of the router is probably no more than $1500. If a Cisco engineer spent 3 full days looking for the router and eventually found it, the company would have lost money in the effort.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

It looks like the jury is thinking something happened in the Master Bathroom.

I really think they just asked for the wrong photo. The one they got is a close up of the shower door and one section of wall. I can't imagine ANYTHING relevant about that.

 

[less0305]

I know exactly what you're talking about. Had my nails done once, and really hated that I could never quite scratch an itch!!

But I don't know if Nancy had gel or acrylic nails--but I think the DAs would have been able to tell from the autopsy, or the person who examined her fingernail scrapings would have made note.

Well, that could have explained why BC's marks were marks and not scratches if someone had thought to note whether she had salon nails. But you're sooooo right - if you have an itch, you just can't quite satisfy it when you scratch with acrylic or gel nails.

 

[sunshine05]

NC told her sister she didn't feel like painting JAs house. Why paint for extra money if BC was just going to deduct what she made from her allowance? She could get $300 from BC without having work for it. Have you ever made plans to do something, but you really didn't want to? Well, maybe BC's plans to play tennis was just what she wanted. She'd call JA in the morning and tell her that BC made plans to play tennis that morning and she wouldn't be able to paint that day. So maybe even tho she made plans to do it she had decided by that party she would call with an excuse to get out of it. Possible. & That could be why she didn't tell anyone she had plans to paint.

Except JA said it was NC's idea to come over to help her paint the DR.

She also was not going to be making money on it....it was a swap for organizing help.

So why would she make plans to do this for no money when we know she was tired of painting? It makes no sense and it only reinforces my thought that JA lied about it.

 

[lib's mom]

Kinda funny - in reading another ongoing trial updates the accused (another husband) was noted by police as having "patches" of red marks on his arms. When asked how he got them, he told three different stories. Patches of red marks. I have acrylic nails and that got me to thinking - if I were being attacked and I had to scratch or used my hands in a defensive manner, I would not leave scratches - my nails aren't sharp enough for that. They're too thick. They would definitely leave red marks or patches, but not scratches. Did NC have acrylic nails? Did she go for manicures and pedicures and get acrylic or gel nails? Where was the pink nail found again?

I only remeber talk about Nancy wanting to get a pedicure. And in that picture of her wearing *the* dress, where she's holding up her middle finger, apparently to show a small black dot on the nail, her nails looked short and clipped to me.

The autopsy report said that she had pink polish on her toenails. And I do remember that they found a piece of an acrylic pink nail in the garage. I remember it as being a part of a nail, because Det Y. (I think) testified about how they had tried to match it to one of Nancy's toenail that had a chip missing. It wasn't the same size as Nancy's missing piece, nor was it the same shade of pink (and IIRC, the autopsy report did not say her toenails were acrylic.)

 

[3doglady]

It still isn't before the jury, and if it was the proof that the state has been saying, then they should have delayed. I would think it was important if it wasn't controversial.

Hey, I actually agree with you. I was hoping the jury would hear him.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

I don't think so because she paid NC $240 and $150 of that was for labor, so it was probably 2-3 gallons of paint?

 

[sunshine05]

Not a pink nail, a pink chip of paint from what looked like a barbie car. Found in the garage, next to the barbie car. Completely ruled out as a nail.

And I don't believe she had press-on nails, because that was discussed.

That's right! This was another of the long list of prosecution lies during closing. Cummings said a pink nail was found in the garage.

 

[KellyCrash]

As long as we're talking about the painting, here's something that maybe somebody could help me with:

JA testified that after Nancy finished the painting on Wednesday, she suggested to J. that they go ahead and paint the dining room. JA agreed and they were gonna swap painting for organizing. The painting in the DR wasn't originally planned.

Here's where I have trouble: They didn't buy any more paint. They just used what was leftover. Wouldn't that have been *alot* of leftover paint? I mean, that's a whole other room. And when BA testified about what they moved that morning, it didn't sound like a tiny room or just one wall.

Also most dining rooms I've been in (real ones not on tv) people tend to have moldings/chair rail on the bottom and leave that a lighter color and paint the top half of the wall a dark color. Could have just been painting half walls.

 

[Danielle59]

I'll concede that it was me that believed the document that Kurtz presented to GM that GM didn't recognized did not address the "H" (missing) router. I was mistaken.

However, the fact remains that GM says he ordered two routers and received them both on 1/8/2008. One of those two routers now mysteriously shows up on a report as belonging to a completely different CISCO group, UCBU Development Test and it has a "Received from Manufacturer Date" of 9/11/08.

This supports was was testified to earlier... CISCO doesn't keep good records of equipment coming and going. GM has a chat where Brad tells him he took a 3825 home and will return it when his 28xx comes in. GM's inventory DOES NOT REFECT THAT BRAD TOOK THE ROUTER HOME so why, when/if Brad brought it back would GM make any note of it? GM didn't look for the router after 1/8/08 UNTIL last Monday. He has absolutely no idea whether it came back or not.

I didn't see the testimony of CF where he discusses a log that proves this router was attached to BC's home network. Any idea why the prosecution would have chosen not to present such damning evidence to the jury??

They didn't even discuss the serial number of the router Brad had in January. I think the State was just trying to confuse things, they don't even know that he had an FXO capable router for certain, they just want people to think he did on that night.

 

[jrb0124]

Cheyenne is correct - GM had a server, BC had a 3825 router. I think if you go back and listen to the testimony you will find that to be the case. Not trying to be argumentative, but I'm about 99.999999% sure that was the testimony.

GM: (reading BC chat text) "I borrowed one of your 3825s over the weekend, I have 2851 on order - once it comes in I can swap it out unless you need it sooner"

GM: a 3825 in this chat session is a reference of a router. a 2851 is also a reference to a router. So he's basically saying I am borrowing this one router, if you need it I can swap it out for this 2851 when I get that.

BZ: we'll come back to what a 3825 is later...at that point do you joke with him?

GM: Yah I did I was just joking around I said (reading off chat session) 'what' and I called him a thief.

GM: He then responded, (reading chat) 'hey its not like you don't have a 3825 at home from me'.

GM: The indication in the chat there it says 'smile' it doesn't have the actual image...it would be like an emotion icon of a smiley face, ummm so I responded (reading chat) 'so will I get that 3825 back?', and he said yes.

GM: I had a question of (reading chat) 'at home?', and umm he responded 'currently, yes'.

BZ: and what does that mean to you?

GM: so this was kind of a...kind of a misrepresentation actually in the comment...so when I said 'at home?' I was actually referencing to the 3825 that he mentioned earlier saying 'hey its not like you don't have a 3825 at home from me', but he took it as a literal comment, and he's like 'currently, yes'.

BZ: okay

GM: sometimes in chat sessions you can say one thing and think another...and this is again, ummm what I was referencing.

BZ: so to you that means that the 3825 was in the defendent's house?

GM: correct

BZ: okay

GM: I then responded 'I have none at home only a 3745 and a 2821' cause again I was thinking he was saying I have a 3825 at home so I was going back and referencing that I only had a 3745 and a 2821 those again are model types for routers

GM: and then he mentioned at 2:24 'I thought you grabbed a single U server from me', is it that one..er is that in the lab.

-Gm answers yes he has one its in the lab

GM: I has borrowed a rout..err..switc...err...server from him to use at my house.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing is clear from his testimony about it IMO.

This guy seems to collect routers at his house, and obviously BC is one of the folks who order these routers.

While I stand corrected that he did not own up to having one, if you read the transcript (better yet watch the vid) you could interpret his gibber-speak to be trying to dance around it.

As for the U server, that's a different item and discussion altogether IMO but GM conflates the 2 when they clearly are not the same piece of equipment being discussed.

 

[FullDisclosure]

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.

I haven't read through the whole thread, so forgive me if this has already been said. IMO, it would have been noted in the autopsy if Nancy had acrylic nails. It was noted that she had blood under her nails.

 

[sunshine05]

I have to admit that I wasn't seeing any motive in murder to avoid child support. Hearing about some of the debt and expenses, I can see how this murder fits into a typical spousal homicide based on out of control spending with no way to stop it or get ahead of it. I can see that Brad was facing an overwhelming debt situation. He could have viewed his life has having provided for Nancy and the children, and in 2008 they were going to disappear from his life and he was going to be resonsible for all the debt and be expected to provide for them as he had in the past. We know they talked about the debt because Nancy mentioned meetings with a financial planner. The question is why nothing was done to curb the spending. I think he probably felt backed into a corner with no where to go. I think Jason Young also falls into the category of someone that couldn't see a way to manage financially (but that was because Michelle was going to take time off for the children).

Before anyone suggests I'm blaming the victim, I'm not. I'm merely coming to my own understanding of a possible motive for the murder.

Yes, but murder was not going to make the debt disappear. If anything, her getting the green card and getting a job would have helped.

If he had had a huge policy on her, then I would tend to agree that could have been motive.

 

[otto]

Except JA said it was NC's idea to come over to help her paint the DR.

She also was not going to be making money on it....it was a swap for organizing help.

So why would she make plans to do this for no money when we know she was tired of painting? It makes no sense and it only reinforces my thought that JA lied about it.

That's a good point.

 

[Danielle59]

I don't think JA was involved in the crime. I find that a stretch too difficult to imagine although I realize there are some theorists here who think otherwise. I think she, by nature, has a very controlling personality. And with that I think she thought she was acting on behalf of Nancy, and with Nancy's best interests at heart, on the morning of July 12 and thereafter.
I am not sure I believe MH's testimony in full.
I realize that a lot of what JA told the CPD in the early stages of the disappearance/murder was not factual; however, I do believe she was acting in good faith--again, on Nancy's behalf. Much of what she stated to the detectives were based on her knowledge of what was normal or typical in Nancy's life--the passports and phone in the car, the ducks and sticks in the foyer, etc. I think she believed too much of Nancy's spew about BC, probably most of them did. But when it's all said and done, I think she was saying, doing, behaving, and addressing her concerns out of her love for her friend.

BBM, that is typically called obstruction of justice.