2011.05.05 Verdict Watch (day 2)

[yeknomaras]

feed is up, showing a girl reading the paper


???? for whatever reason lol

 

[GhostCrab]

Well Said GhostCrab.

I know that you have mentioned that you are an attorney. I don't know if you are active in your practice, how many years of experience you have, or what area of law you focus on.

I will say that there has to be a happy median here though. I agree that the prosecution should be held to a high standard, but there are places where the rights of the accused seem to trump the rights of the victim(s) and the public. Take, for example, the defense attempting to exclude evidence. In the JLY case, the cash gas receipt. Now, I have not REALLY followed that case, but I am aware of the basics. If that receipt exists, and there is someone who says she sold JLY the gas and he paid cash for it, why on earth should that be excluded? Because it makes him look guilty? There has to be a point that if someone did a crime, it does not get plead down, it does not get thrown out, and they do real and HARD time for it. It was not because of their childhood traumas, the way their parents raised them, or because they were picked last for the softball team. They have to put on their big boy britches and take the consequences of their choices. I seriously doubt that anyone on this board has had a completely smooth ride their entire lives. We can all point out things that have happened in our past that either we are still dealing with, or that have traumatized us in some way, but that is the stuff of life. It ain't pretty, but it is a fact.

This case captivated me because it happened very close to my home, and there was a technical angle to it. Based upon following this case pretty closely (dons asbestos underwear) I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that BC commited this crime, and that it was premeditated. Are their things in the case that I wish were handled differently? Sure. Would it have likely impacted my decisions? Probably not. I seriously don't belive the computer was hacked (at least not in the usual sense of the word, BC might have attempted to destroy files). I don't think there was anything on the NC phone that would change my mind about the decision, and I do think the calls, which were his strongest alibi were staged by BC. When I combine that with the probability that all of the other things that HAD to happen over that weekend all attained a cosmic confluence to make it look like he was guilty, I cannot buy into those mathmatics. The odds against all this stuff happening to one person at the same time make winning the powerball look like a foregone conclusion if you only bought one ticket. Can it happen that way? Sure. Is it likely? Hardly!!

IMO and so forth.

That's a good question regarding the receipt and one that I bet a lot of people do not understand.

First of all, having a piece of evidence such as that is very damning for a defendant in JY's circumstances. He would not have effective counsel if there was not a motion to suppress it.

But the simple fact that he could have it suppressed goes to our due process. We have laws in place (dp laws, natch) to ensure that each and every individual is protected from the state. Whether it is a miranda warning or something else, we have established a playbook by which the state must operate. If the state steps out of line in any way they must be held accountable. And sometimes, holding them accountable is going to result in someone who is guilty walking free. But on the flip side it helps to ensure that those who are innocent are not wrongfully sent to prison.

 

[kantoo]

Have they come back from lunch? Anybody watch the feed?

feed is up. showing the courtroom, the coopers, etc

 

[CyberPro]

LOL!!! Makes 2 of us. Whether G or NG - if we're fired could start own biz "Real Investigations".

Seriously, I refer to an earlier post of yours a few pages back re Twitter. I was lurking there - and was as horrified to read the trashy, downright despicable comments and foul language (F words, the "woix") going on. Wral's twitterpage has descended into a cesspool of utter depravity.

Irrespective of what type of lifestyle any victime lives - to be hunted down and slain by another is and remains senseless. Those TWITS cheer death on. They constantly snark, laugh, sneer and guffaw. Horrible.

----------------------->

To all - does anyone (Gs and NGs) think there may be any hint or a likelihood of a hung jury? J/A

I knew about twitter before this case, but never followed or logged in to it. I did not really see the point.

I would log in for updates during blackouts in this trial, but did not like some of the commentary then.

I am happy to say that you are safe to "go with your gut" sometimes. I am back to not seeing the point of it, and have no plans to check it again in the future.

 

[gbay]

Question...do all the lawyers and the judge just sit in court the whole time waiting for the verdict?? Seems to be a bit of a waste of time.

 

[cityslick]

feed is up. showing the courtroom, the coopers, etc

All I got is rainbows.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I'm not a runner but my favorite thing is protein smoothies. I blend ice, juice, vanilla whey protein, Greek yogurt (no aspartame or artificial sweeteners), 1/2 banana, 1 tsp organic coconut oil. SO good and definitely gives me an energy boost. I'm drinking one right now.

I don't like dairy in my smoothies. I make a fruit/veggie smoothie and eat my greek yogurt on the side.

1/2 banana, 1 c. frozen blueberries, 1 c. spinach, 1/2 c. fruit juice, 1/2-3/4 c. water, 1-2 T Ground Flaxseed

Plenty of energy to keep up with stressful trial days :great:

 

[jrb0124]

Also Rosemary said she was certain it was 7:10, says she checked her watch.. Food Lion Guy expanded time from 6:55 to 7:10. So from that it would be certain they did not see the same jogger. I do not think Rosemary or Food Lion Guy helped the defense at all

Everyone who is not convinced of BC guilt or is convinced of his innocence has legitimate reasons to be so IMO. Not all are the same or as important to some as others.

For myself, the biggest red flag is 'the jogger' RZ saw.

I don't think there is anyone who doubts RZ saw and exchanged 'hello's with a woman jogging there on the morning of 7/12.

She said this jogger was not sweaty, thus had not been running for long.

If it wasn't NC, then who was it? how likely is it - given the media publicity, roadblocks, flyers, and neighborhood engagement, that this woman jogger RZ encountered would not surface?

It would have been in the CPD/State's best interest to track this person down, because if they did they could eliminate RZ testimony as relevent evidence. Look at the time (3 witnesses) they spent in rebuttal on her testimony. Its obviously important to the State that the jury does not hold her testimony as credible...so go find the woman she saw! put her on the stand to tell the jury 'I was the one'.

If you can't produce that jogger, IMO it was NC.

I think she did see NC, because NC runs an 8:45/9:00 mile...and if she left her house around 7:00, that spot was 0.7 miles from the house. the timing is perfect.

 

[bloghooligan]

Question...do all the lawyers and the judge just sit in court the whole time waiting for the verdict?? Seems to be a bit of a waste of time.

I was thinking the same thing. I saw Boz & Cummings for sure; NC's family, lots of ppl. Not sure about the defense side. Seems odd that the'd all be there unless somethings up.

 

[RaleighNC]

this is REALLY great insight. I have read comments that:

--NC was a bad mother b/c her children went to daycare and she didn't work. In fact, her children went to preschool and most stay at home moms enroll their children in some type of preschool experience before kindergarten

--NC lounged around the pool all the time. There are many stay at home moms who take their kids to the pool multiple times a week or most days of the week in the summer...heck, it's too hot to do much else outside.

--NC was lazy b/c her house was not clean in the photos. Nancy had planned to move and had packed some things then did not move so had to dig into those boxes. Keep in mind that when you are in a really bad relationship/unhappy there is not much motivation to clean the house. Not to mention that most families with small children do not have houses that look tidy all the time. If someone walked into your house at a time not of your choosing what would it look like?

--NC was lazy b/c she should have cleaned up the dishes before leaving for the trip w/ her family. I take my two small children on road trips and it takes FOREVER to get on the road. I can easily see leaving lunch dishes and expecting my husband, who is home alone all week w/ no responsibilities other than work, to take care of it.

These are just a few examples that come to mind where I think people judged Nancy and twisted facts. Both the defense and pro witnesses have all said she was an amazing mother. There is nothing to support the theory that she was lazy.

And truly, I don't care if she made a sloth look like Richard SImmon's in the 80's - it's no reason to murder someone.

The ONLY reason her actions should be discussed is to 1) explain Brad's behavior as a response to her actions or 2) determine if there was some other theory that should have been explored (i.e. the indiscretion)

Too many seem to throw out anything seen as a shortcoming just to make her less of a person and not to discuss #1 or #2 above.

And that's crappy.

 

[Amster]

What is "GOLO"?

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Well Said GhostCrab.

I know that you have mentioned that you are an attorney. I don't know if you are active in your practice, how many years of experience you have, or what area of law you focus on.

I will say that there has to be a happy median here though. I agree that the prosecution should be held to a high standard, but there are places where the rights of the accused seem to trump the rights of the victim(s) and the public. Take, for example, the defense attempting to exclude evidence. In the JLY case, the cash gas receipt. Now, I have not REALLY followed that case, but I am aware of the basics. If that receipt exists, and there is someone who says she sold JLY the gas and he paid cash for it, why on earth should that be excluded? Because it makes him look guilty? There has to be a point that if someone did a crime, it does not get plead down, it does not get thrown out, and they do real and HARD time for it. It was not because of their childhood traumas, the way their parents raised them, or because they were picked last for the softball team. They have to put on their big boy britches and take the consequences of their choices. I seriously doubt that anyone on this board has had a completely smooth ride their entire lives. We can all point out things that have happened in our past that either we are still dealing with, or that have traumatized us in some way, but that is the stuff of life. It ain't pretty, but it is a fact.

This case captivated me because it happened very close to my home, and there was a technical angle to it. Based upon following this case pretty closely (dons asbestos underwear) I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that BC commited this crime, and that it was premeditated. Are their things in the case that I wish were handled differently? Sure. Would it have likely impacted my decisions? Probably not. I seriously don't belive the computer was hacked (at least not in the usual sense of the word, BC might have attempted to destroy files). I don't think there was anything on the NC phone that would change my mind about the decision, and I do think the calls, which were his strongest alibi were staged by BC. When I combine that with the probability that all of the other things that HAD to happen over that weekend all attained a cosmic confluence to make it look like he was guilty, I cannot buy into those mathmatics. The odds against all this stuff happening to one person at the same time make winning the powerball look like a foregone conclusion if you only bought one ticket. Can it happen that way? Sure. Is it likely? Hardly!!

IMO and so forth.

Great reading, CyberPro. Tku ... "the odds against all this stuff happening to one guy" = a string of logical circumstantial evidential dots that all join up (in my tech-less brain). You simplified it for me

 

[cityslick]

And truly, I don't care if she made a sloth look like Richard SImmon's in the 80's - it's no reason to murder someone.

The ONLY reason her actions should be discussed is to 1) explain Brad's behavior as a response to her actions or 2) determine if there was some other theory that should have been explored (i.e. the indiscretion)

Too many seem to throw out anything seen as a shortcoming just to make her less of a person and not to discuss #1 or #2 above.

And that's crappy.

The question is where do you draw the line? Do you bring up her affair with JP for example? Do you bring up spending habits?

It's an honest question and I don't know if I've ever heard the answer to it (if there is one).

 

[gbay]

Everyone who is not convinced of BC guilt or is convinced of his innocence has legitimate reasons to be so IMO. Not all are the same or as important to some as others.

For myself, the biggest red flag is 'the jogger' RZ saw.

I don't think there is anyone who doubts RZ saw and exchanged 'hello's with a woman jogging there on the morning of 7/12.

She said this jogger was not sweaty, thus had not been running for long.

If it wasn't NC, then who was it? how likely is it - given the media publicity, roadblocks, flyers, and neighborhood engagement, that this woman jogger RZ encountered would not surface?

It would have been in the CPD/State's best interest to track this person down, because if they did they could eliminate RZ testimony as relevent evidence. Look at the time (3 witnesses) they spent in rebuttal on her testimony. Its obviously important to the State that the jury does not hold her testimony as credible...so go find the woman she saw! put her on the stand to tell the jury 'I was the one'.

If you can't produce that jogger, IMO it was NC.

I think she did see NC, because NC runs an 8:45/9:00 mile...and if she left her house around 7:00, that spot was 0.7 miles from the house. the timing is perfect.

RZ did not seem at all credible on the stand...think of someone running past you...RZ would have seen her face (likely the side of it) just for an instant and then she would have seen the back of her head. Nancy wasn't walking she was running.

 

[kantoo]

Question...do all the lawyers and the judge just sit in court the whole time waiting for the verdict?? Seems to be a bit of a waste of time.

they have to be available for the jury's questions/requests.

with laptops, the judge and lawyers can still work....:twocents:

 

[cody100]

All I got is rainbows.

I don't get the feed either. This is channel 11 website.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

What is "GOLO"?

Asking same Q. Even went to abbreviations to see if I could find Guilty Of Lesser Offense or something .... a few weeks back.

Lost ... :maddening:

 

[RaleighNC]

Hmmm....2 hr lunch. Juror wears a suit. Poor guy probably has a job interview today. And he just got outed, sort of. His boss at his current job may want some 'splainin done. d'oh!

I was guessing funeral.

 

[sunshine05]

The past few months the availability of organic coupons has gotten so much better! I think there is finally enough competition among brands to make coupons happen. My little one is on a special diet so we are a mostly organic, fresh food household as well. Mambo Sprouts has helped our budget tremendously.

We just got a new Whole Foods up here (finally) and we are in the Brinkley Farms CSA, which is really good.

 

[cityslick]

Asking same Q. Even went to abbreviations to see if I could find Guilty Of Lesser Offense or something .... a few weeks back.

Lost ... :maddening:

The local news station (WRAL) forum.