He had an affair with the French lady and it was proven through circumstantial evidence.
Can you please point out these other possibilities? Thanks.
Too many to list..... but for one example of how detailed they were in following up leads .....I believe they even followed up on some soiled toilet paper in the park or something.
I'm not aware of a "someone" spoken about on this board and not elsewhere. In fact I haven't even heard all of the potential "someones" named in the motion to compel document discussed on this board.
All the "someones" I have seen discussed here have been mentioned in testimony during this trial.
JP, BW and the guy from Fl have all been discussed by witnesses on the stand.
Can you please point out these other possibilities? Thanks.
LOL, I know that had to be sarcasm. Here's the book, you can read the cover and decide for yourself.
http://www.paperbackswap.com/Love-Lies-Amanda-Lamb/book/0425241483/
I think it probably isn't the best judgment on the part of WRAL to have her reporting on this case. It does however explain some of the WRAL articles and headlines.
It absolutely was not. The friend from the MBA program could attest to only serious flirting. Even when the prosecution was trying to get him to say that he saw the two were behind closed doors at times he said he did not know.
How do you know they didn't look at any other suspects? Normal procedure would be to look into/investigate all possible suspects and rule them out. They couldn't rule Brad out. I can't see them publicizing anyone else they considered a suspect. That would probably open them up to a lawsuit based on the sue happy mentality of a lot of people these days.
I can assure you the jurors will make the inference of what happened behind closed doors.
A true story about a husband with a secret? I think the book is premature. In fact, I read a bit of the link that UNC70 posted and really wonder what is going on with this prosecution. It looks to me like the prosecution desperately wants to win their case, but at the same time I'm not convinced that the prosecution has been honest and fair.
Here is the link for anyone else that hasn't read this document: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/news_briefs/2011/02/17/9132146/coopermotion.PDF
I caught that yesterday too. I put it in the same category as using Facebook to try and discredit JW. Of course, it worked for some people on here.
Because, according to the eyewitnesses that claim they saw NC jogging, the CDP was negligent in following up with them in a timely manner. They had BC tailed from the minute NC went missing. These eyewitnesses felt that the police failed to follow up with them appropriately. You are correct:
normal procedure wouled be to look into/ investigage all possible suspects". But, in my opinion, I agree with Kurtz - the CDP were inept in dealing with this crime
Well, I think they sent somebody to check out the columbian gang who killed nicole brown simpson, I believe I heard they've been searching every golf course up the Eastern Seaboard, and I think they've even got somebody on that brown/white/light red/pink van also involved in the murder of Laci Peterson.
You have no answer because reason tells you that if the lead detective sits on the witness stand and says no, we didn't have any other suspects, then maybe they did focus solely on BC. And if the police chief calls a press conference two days after NC is found to state that this was not a random crime, then yes, they probably eliminated everyone else from the beginning. But please by all means make inane references to things that have nothing to do with this case instead of answering the question.
HM, his bosses wife, and girl in France. He admitted the first two affairs. The girl in France.....seen holding hands, had emails after returning to U.S. Not a big leap that it was an affair too. Nancy suspected as much also.
Because, according to the eyewitnesses that claim they saw NC jogging, the CDP was negligent in following up with them in a timely manner. They had BC tailed from the minute NC went missing. These eyewitnesses felt that the police failed to follow up with them appropriately. You are correct:
normal procedure wouled be to look into/ investigage all possible suspects". But, in my opinion, I agree with Kurtz - the CDP were inept in dealing with this crime
Why do so many of you automatically feel that all of the eyewitnesses that claim they saw NC were wrong? How do you know? That is a big assumption to make that ALL of them were incorrect. Is it just because them seeing NC doesn't fit with you theory that BC definitely killed her? Isn't it a strong possibility that ALL of these witnesses were correct in what they saw? Afterall we are not talking about only 1 eyewitnesses, but more than 1. I find it odd that they would ALL be wrong.
Who, exactly, should have been their other suspect? A man in Florida? A man in Canada? You have to have a person in order for there to be a suspect.