2011.05.04 Verdict Watch

[unc70]

Think we will ever know why the defense question about the non-exist address on Greenstone Lane?

Expect there will be many questions that will remain unanswered. That's real life.

 

[otto]

I think the point that the router was last accounted for in Jan 2008, when Brad said that he would return it because he was getting another one, means nothing since Cisco doesn't keep track of their equipment. That's like me going into a wood shop, signing out the power drill, returning it, and it disappearing for seven months. When someone looks for it again, I'm the last person to sign it out. Does that mean I didn't return it? Seven months is a long time.

What was that about Brad pulling something out from under his desk and giving it to his wife's new friend's husband? He's an IT genius too. I think it was the husband of JA. Brad said that he had a bunch of the widgets under his desk and gave the new friend just the technology he wanted for a good price (free). Presumably the implication was that Brad was stealing from the company. The spaghetti on the wall reference comes to mind.

 

[otto]

I can't see the defense doing that either...but just as an fyi...DV is a club that no one wants to belong to...but the ability to speak about it most certainly shows positive growth. Those that have suffered from it whether it's physical or emotional abuse are often unable to bring themselves to talk about it...so bravo to those that can come and give their 2 cents!! I appreciate those that bring any knowledge to understanding a case...everyone comes from a place of experince. Look at all the marvelous techies here...I've learned so much.

By emotional abuse, do you mean verbal abuse? From what I understood from the neighborhood <mod snip>, Nancy sounded quite outspoken, gregarious, outgoing and extroverted. The mechanical engineer testified that when she, her husband, Nancy and Brad looked at a cabin/house on the lake, Nancy was very assertive in telling her that they were not to buy the property. I don't view Nancy as being emotionally/psychologically abused, or suffering from self-esteem issues.

 

[otto]

Think we will ever know why the defense question about the non-exist address on Greenstone Lane?

Expect there will be many questions that will remain unanswered. That's real life.

Does it have anything to do with HM? Was it a place that she went with married men?

 

[otto]

In a way, it's surprising how many people testified that they had a run in with Nancy but they were still friends. One of the first people to testify claimed that there was some strain in the friendship because her son had bopped one of the girls in the nose and broken her nose. Another friend or two testified that even though they knew about Brad's affair with HM and didn't say a word, Nancy was still friends with them. The mechanical engineer said that even though Nancy told them they could not buy a beautiful lakefront property because Nancy had first dibbs (although they all knew the Coopers couldn't afford it), they were still friends. There was an awful lot of betrayal going on in that neighborhood for everyone to still be friends.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

The milk in the middle of the night came out through the PI McGough's testimony. Once was just milk, the other was milk and green juice at like 2am.

I think they probably do want to take a peak back at the green juice. And I think it was brought out in trial that the last laundry detergent purchase was ~7 weeks prior--but that is a good point that they would want to verify that.

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.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Well, one thing about it is the case is with the jury now and nothing we say here will be seen by them or influence them. This case is almost a done deal now.

I so hope justice is done. Remember Nancy Cooper? I do.

MOO

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

I couldn't agree more.

Hi less :crazy:

(Your post above agreed with dramamama apropos JA's difficult times.)

Ditto me.

Something I notice is that the 3 women central to the case are continually dissed in here by BDDI's. NC, JA and AS.

All 3, (among other crucial witnesses of NC's family and other friends), unwittingly ended up with a deadly, vital and critical role (respectively) in NC's murder.

JA was very close to NC, was exceptionally worried about her - JA listened to NC and I believe she could "see through" BC, and has to have gone to hell and back during this case. It must have taken a toll on her, by all accounts. AS was NC's legal pillar - giving constructive, step-by-step advice to NC as to how to manage the divorce.

Neither are accused of anything and the dissing only makes me believe BC is definitely guilty. Shooting the messenger is obsolete; it does not provide valid, plausible and feasible reasons why anyone else would have wanted NC dead. I read more that folk hope it was someone else. Sadly, in my heart - the only someone to have had means motive and the opportunity to do this is BC. And he's up for murder.

JMO

 

[otto]

Skittles, I made some changes to the floor plan

 

[cody100]

I believed every word of his testimony and he even did experiments on the blood spatter on his own time to prove various things about all of that blood, where it went, and how it got there. I was impressed with his diligence.
I hope he can find another job in his area of expertise as I, too, feel that he was railroaded. Big time.

Yes, he is very impressive. Blood splatter is a tough area, and yes he did do experiments to prove various scenarios. I would expect we haven't heard the last of what happened to him.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

If there was not one single qualifier of an abusive relationship there, then why have so many posters come forward and shared their personal stories and say they relate to NC? Were you in a DV marriage? If your answer is no, perhaps you need to spend less time invalidating the emotional experiences of many others, and devote more time to trying to identify with those experiences.

You can't stop thinking about JA? Well, I can't stop thinking about BC and his face yesterday when Cummings finished his closing.

Hi dramamama! Nice to be back here again

Agree re acrimonious or painful DVs.

Following on from your comment re what / who we can't stop thinking about - I've taken a new "out there" thought over to Alternate Theories new thread. There are so many topics in this thread that keeping up makes me reach for my angina tablets, lol, so adding my new thought here ain't a good idea, heh!

 

[cody100]

Hi less :crazy:

(Your post above agreed with dramamama apropos JA's difficult times.)

Ditto me.

Something I notice is that the 3 women central to the case are continually dissed in here by BDDI's. NC, JA and AS.

All 3, (among other crucial witnesses of NC's family and other friends), unwittingly ended up with a deadly, vital and critical role (respectively) in NC's murder.

JA was very close to NC, was exceptionally worried about her - JA listened to NC and I believe she could "see through" BC, and has to have gone to hell and back during this case. It must have taken a toll on her, by all accounts. AS was NC's legal pillar - giving constructive, step-by-step advice to NC as to how to manage the divorce.

Neither are accused of anything and the dissing only makes me believe BC is definitely guilty. Shooting the messenger is obsolete; it does not provide valid, plausible and feasible reasons why anyone else would have wanted NC dead. I read more that folk hope it was someone else. Sadly, in my heart - the only someone to have had means motive and the opportunity to do this is BC. And he's up for murder.

JMO

Welcome back. As you know, we probably do not see everything the same, but I respect your opinions. First, I agree that BC is the number one candidate for this murder, but why should we not examine closely any person connected to the victim, including her best friend? I think this is only fair, and it is no more incorrect or correct than doing that with BC. In the truth and veracity department, there were some challenges for several of the players in this case, including pressure for everyone to comply with doing BC in. Many folks simply aren't as convinced as the BDI'ers are. There is nothing wrong with looking closely at the evidence and having alternate theories. What is wrong in my opinion is dissing day after day of everyone involved in the case and also those who do not agree with a certain opinion. I would love to be a fly on the wall in that jury room though. This has been a very fascinating case, although very sad in many ways.

 

[cody100]

I have felt strange vibes from the beginning about GM. I watched his first testimony on video stream, no idea where it was going, noted that the timing of when they were at lunch must be important, and that his having to call NC back and tell her (now everyone) that he had failed the exam. I attributed vibes to his having his exam results made public.

After rewatching this and his other testimony, I believe GM was irritated at BC, resented BC's achievements and upset by his recent lack thereof, and saw behavior by BC as deliberate slights to belittle GM. Remember how he described BC answering NC call and going outside. I think this was building over a long time, becoming intense after the murder.

Being the hero, tinged with a bit of payback.

IMO Another person wanting to help protect the prosecution's case, frustrated when challenged by defense.

You know, I had that same feeling about GM. Something just isn't right that he would suddenly come forth to save the day for the prosecution. He did seem unusually annoyed at the phone call during lunch. I thought that unusual at the time. Thanks for bringing that up. I am not saying he is fabricating anything but why now?

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Welcome back. As you know, we probably do not see everything the same, but I respect your opinions. First, I agree that BC is the number one candidate for this murder, but why should we not examine closely any person connected to the victim, including her best friend? I think this is only fair, and it is no more incorrect or correct than doing that with BC. In the truth and veracity department, there were some challenges for several of the players in this case, including pressure for everyone to comply with doing BC in. Many folks simply aren't as convinced as the BDI'ers are. There is nothing wrong with looking closely at the evidence and having alternate theories. What is wrong in my opinion is dissing day after day of everyone involved in the case and also those who do not agree with a certain opinion. I would love to be a fly on the wall in that jury room though. This has been a very fascinating case, although very sad in many ways.

Hi cody - nice communicating again! Thanks for your posted thoughts - welcomed and respected. First thing comes to mind is where you wrote "I think this is only fair"... compared to what or whom?

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.

Not one of the "some other dude" fits rationally. Not one. Not even a random attacker - no rape. Not a robber - nothing stolen. This was up close and very, very personal. Remove all the tech-speak, the phone calls and you get an angry man wanting his wife out of his life forever and not paying a dime for it.

IMO: It's definitely big, bad, sad ole Brad :loser: badder than ole King Kong ...

 

[otto]

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.

Did he change his clothes, or did he change shoes?

If it was seven weeks since laundry detergent was purchased, does that mean that $300/mo was not enough to afford detergent, no one was doing laundry, or one box of detergent lasts seven weeks?

In the week before Nancy disappeared, she was returning from two weeks vacation with the chidlren, she called pest control and there were piles of dishes and laundry. She was upset with Brad and he was trying to work it out by meeting with financial advisors and marriage counsellors. Perhaps he was cleaning like a maniac that morning ... to appease.

Nancy was wearing a black dress on July 11. It appears that she changed into a blue-green dress for the party where she got together with Brad. After his wife was missing, Brad was confused whether she wore a black dress, a blue dress, or a green dress. Perhaps he was hiding the dress, perhaps he was not paying attention.

I don't think he was framed, but I do think there was some monkey business with the phone and if the phone was monkeyed with, what else was monkeyed with.

Is that an inconsistency that cannot be explained.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Did he change his clothes, or did he change shoes?

If it was seven weeks since laundry detergent was purchased, does that mean that $300/mo was not enough to afford detergent, no one was doing laundry, or one box of detergent lasts seven weeks?

In the week before Nancy disappeared, she was returning from two weeks vacation with the chidlren, she called pest control and there were piles of dishes and laundry. She was upset with Brad and he was trying to work it out by meeting with financial advisors and marriage counsellors. Perhaps he was cleaning like a maniac that morning ... to appease.

Nancy was wearing a black dress on July 11. It appears that she changed into a blue-green dress for the party where she got together with Brad. After his wife was missing, Brad was confused whether she wore a black dress, a blue dress, or a green dress. Perhaps he was hiding the dress, perhaps he was not paying attention.

I don't think he was framed, but I do think there was some monkey business with the phone and if the phone was monkeyed with, what else was monkeyed with.

Is that an inconsistency that cannot be explained.

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.

 

[otto]

Welcome back. As you know, we probably do not see everything the same, but I respect your opinions. First, I agree that BC is the number one candidate for this murder, but why should we not examine closely any person connected to the victim, including her best friend? I think this is only fair, and it is no more incorrect or correct than doing that with BC. In the truth and veracity department, there were some challenges for several of the players in this case, including pressure for everyone to comply with doing BC in. Many folks simply aren't as convinced as the BDI'ers are. There is nothing wrong with looking closely at the evidence and having alternate theories. What is wrong in my opinion is dissing day after day of everyone involved in the case and also those who do not agree with a certain opinion. I would love to be a fly on the wall in that jury room though. This has been a very fascinating case, although very sad in many ways.

BBM

But of course, the last best friend only slept with her husband. The next best friend did what ...

I like your point about group think and how everyone that didn't partake in the "group think" was considered to be in the wrong group ... reminds me of Wallace & Grommit.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Otto! Lolllllll ! Funny.

Wallace & Grommit :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

Gotta go now - gr8 debating. Admittedly, this one is not as insanely clear as Scott Peterson - but then Scotty was into fertilizer and not as complexly educated and tech-sophisticated as BC.

IMO, BC brought his degrees of education to create the BBB effect .... BS baffles brains. And let's be honest, the geek-speak has been baffling to some. Yep, I'm top o'the list!


:seeya:

 

[Bottle Cap]

Comments about Nancy being in a "controlling" marriage don't hold water for me. Anyone that has been in a controlling relationship knows that they cannot spend freely, they cannot come and go as they please, they are slowly and gradually isolated from family and then friends, they become a shell of their former selves and they are eventually completely unsure of everything they think and do. In my opinion, that was not Nancy. Nancy was put on a budget and prevented from taking the children and leaving the country. There are laws preventing one parent from taking the children and leaving the country because it's not okay. Having a strict budget is normal in families that have healthy finances.

I think the biggest clue that Nancy was not in a controlling relationship is that she was free to talk about her marital frustrations. Women in controlling relationships typically put up a good front in public (someone mentioned the word "ashamed") because they are being controlled. They are not out sociallizing because their husbands want to know exactly what they're doing all the time. Their husbands are insecure, territorial and jealous but act aloof.

Verbally abusive relationships involve a stream of put-downs to the point where a woman's self-esteem is destroyed. Again, I don't see this in Nancy. She was buying interview suits, in contact with a former boyfriend, arranging interviews, going on vacations and enjoying herself. She did not seem to be suffering self-esteem problems.

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.

 

[Palomine]

Was that the only hair tie she owned?

that bathroom looked spotless ..accept for hair tie and wipes