April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[SleuthinNC]

The autopsy report says 'extensive infestation in the genitalia area'. Page 1. Did he tesitfy to something different or am interpreting the report incorrectly.

Kelly

You are correct. In fact I mentioned that here before because the bug guy mentioned it as well as the infestation on the back of the head which he would have thought indicated trauma to those areas but he was surprised that was not listed in the ME report

 

[Danielle59]

Another thing to consider...

Kurtz is being paid $85/hr to represent Bradley. Rest assured he has racked up many hours to bill the state of NC, and has done little else in his own private practice.
The prosecution is on a piddly salary and juggles 100's of serious cases at any given time. I have said, this trio of prosecutors have not done a good job for the state and the people of Wake County.
Boz and Amy are on the DA drug squad....hardly seasoned for 1st degree murder cases.

The ADA's can always find other employment if they like, I am sure that their office space is paid for, the utilities on it are paid for, their benefits are paid for. Kurtz is not making buck on this trial, he still has taxes, and employee's salaries to pay, and rent/mortgage on his office, and utilities, and mal practice insurance. He is probably taking in less than the ADAs at this point. You don't know which of these ADA's, if any, have been given 100s of other cases to handle during this trial, you are speculating.

 

[NCEast]

But what did the CPD do to rule him out?

Perhaps nothing. But in a normal investigation, gossipy neighbors don't play a lead role as they did in this case.

 

[jrb0124]

Though I think she had it on when he killed her, neither the ducks or the necklace came close to proving murder in the first place.
It's just 2 small pieces of CE that were shot down.

Just to let you know - early on in the discussions these two items played a big role in both arguments here and in the NC friends contribution.

The debunking of both item significantly reduces the credibility of any witness who testified to them.

If you go back and read some of the threads earlier on it will be self-evident.

Most of the other CE has also been either debunked or had considerable reasonable doubt cast upon it.

 

[Danielle59]

Their theory wasn't based on the ducks. Their theory was around the fact that BC was the last one to see her alive, and the foyer floor was cleaned impeccably while he supposed to be playing tennis with a friend that NC okayed. If he really wanted to clean up, and since he was playing with the girls, why didn't he sit in the playroom and attack that mess? The fact the ducks were missing only pointed to their theory that she was killed in the foyer. It was just an added detail that furthered that theory. It was not like the CPD went in and said, oh, JA said there were ducks here. Obviously, since they are gone, there must have been a murder.

They were not a clean and neat couple, let's agree on that? I think they kept the foyer clean because if the door was open at any time that is what people who were at the door or passing by would see and probably what was important to both of them. No one saw the play room, that was probably what always messy and probably why they had a play room, so no one could see the mess.

We need a crime scene? The foyer as the supposed crime scene seems to be off the table, so to speak, now.

 

[jrb0124]

I want to understand the investigative process here.

I keep hearing CPD could not exclude BC as a suspect.

JP was excluded as a suspect apparently because he claims his ex-wife had someplace else to be so that must mean he was home with is kids. Of course this was never actually verified or anything. (There is evidence BC was called from his home as he claims by NC herself)

JP can't remember anything about where he was or what he did that saturday. (BC doesn't remember all the specific minutia of what he did during that time so he's guilty right?)

JP knew the path she ran which matches up to eyewitness accounts of seeing somebody who resembles NC.

JP lied in multiple interviews with CPD including trying to throw suspicion from himself to some "strange guy named Michael" or "Somebody NC knew who lives near Kildaire Farm Rd." (lies in deposition is how we know BC did it right?)

JP was angry with NC for spreading some rumor about him shortly before her death. (Anger, BC was angry right?)

JP repeatedly makes reference to the importance of his reputation for his kids and his livelihood. (Money, that was a motive for BC right?)

JP lied to the police about how often he was in contact with NC in the time leading up to her death. (Again those pesky deposition lies that just shout guilt for BC.)

How exactly is it that BC can't be excluded but JP can?

Worth repeating.

Also might add (since the defense has thrown it out there), its been stipulated that JP may in fact be the father of NC youngest daughter, and if so - may have feared future 'obligations'.

 

[Danielle59]

This is true because of how extreme it was. But it absolutely destroys the credibility of some of the witnesses such as JA who was so sure those ducks were there on the 11th. It shows an agenda on her part.

Along with her telling people to not talk to the police, to talk to her and she would relay to the police.

 

[jrb0124]

The prosecution is on a piddly salary and juggles 100's of serious cases at any given time.

No they don't. This is grossly inaccurate. :shakehead:

 

[Shadow722]

Reading some of today's post, makes me wonder (if no one else), if everybody is so consumed with their own theories over who did it, that no attention has been paid to the case the "actually" laid out against BC in the first place.

To find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the state has presumed the following, and therefore must prove:

1) That BC killed NC before 6AM on the morning of July 12th.

2) To cover for that crime, he must have made a "spoofed call" at 6:40 AM to give the illusion that NC was alive at that time. This is essential to the state case, because if NC made the call, and was alive at 6:40 AM, then BC DID NOT commit this crime.

3) The only direct evidence, as opposed to circumstantial which can cut both ways, is the 7/11 Google search and the 6:40 AM phone call.

4) There is no other evidence presented that points to BC alone. The ME's testimony is inconclusive as to TOD, as was the forensic Bug guy. TOD could have been equally before 6 am as after.

5) At this point every other piece of evidence and testimony is not relevant, unless the state can show: The Google search is untainted, and BC made a 6:40 phone call.

6) Failing to show both, means there is zero evidence that BC killed NC. And the prosecution knows this, and this is why the computer evidence is so important at this late date in the trial.

Everything else we seem hellbent on discussing, is a waste of bandwidth, IMHO. Ducks, sticks, shoes, jewelry, money, eyewitnesses, prior motive, mens, and opportunity.

BC either made the Google search himself on 7/11, and made the spoofed 6:40 call, or he is innocent.......... There are no other avenues for the state, NONE

 

[jrb0124]

Random killers of joggers don't normally transport the body away from the scene of the crime

oh yes they do.

 

[jrb0124]

It was pretty disgusting IMO>

Did you personally see the bedding? How would you know that then?

If you are taking the word of someone who has already lied in affadavit/testimony, please do so with a grain of salt

 

[bloghooligan]

I don't have to worry because I have nothing to do with this trial or its verdict. But I guarantee you that the prosecution is very worried about it. I simply find it amazing how it no longer matters to you on here. Just like the "missing earring". That was proof of guilt to because of his big fingers. That one went poof too.

Thanks to all who straightened me out on the earrings but you reference "missing earring" above. Was the earring missing for a while -- until PD clarified that they had it? Just curious.

 

[jrb0124]

I don't consider it baby sitting. Just like I'm not baby sitting my kids this weekend or during any of the multitude of activities my wife does on her own each week.

I don't either - in fact I have never heard any parent of either gender self-refer to themselves as a 'babysitter', among family or friends. That's bizarre IMO.

 

[Danielle59]

My theory is he didn't want to leave a scent for search dogs because it would not take them from the house but towards it. (And that is what happened anyways.)

Do you really believe when BC had not done NC's laundry that this was the morning he decided to do everything? And so conveniently not have a single item of clothing or towels she used left undone? Is it really possible for this to be only coincidence?

Did you see the pictures of the laundry room, there was all kinds of dirty clothing on the floor?

 

[NCEast]

Thanks to all who straightened me out on the earrings but you reference "missing earring" above. Was the earring missing for a while -- until PD clarified that they had it? Just curious.

No, it was never missing. It was there with her body at the dump site and the people from the ME's office who were preparing to transport her body noticed that one earring was very loose so they removed it so it would not fall out.

 

[Palomine]

Go back and look at the documents, she forwarded in email to his work account about three days after she received it. Why would she have it written up if she was not going to share it with him?

she did not forward it..It was in court that he was forwarding her emails to his account...
Separation agreements go between lawyers not spouses, it was a draft that her lawyer sent Nancy..this was in testimony from Nancy's lawyer

 

[NCEast]

Did you personally see the bedding? How would you know that then?

If you are taking the word of someone who has already lied in affadavit/testimony, please do so with a grain of salt

We saw the pictures of his bedding, in the early days of the trial, and what appeared to have originally been a white pillowcase was very yellow from having not been washed. Several others testified to how 'not clean' his bedroom and linens were. One was the bug guy, the exterminator, IIRC.

 

[Danielle59]

I don't think he expected to not pay child support, or have orders put in place. But even still, that really means nothing nowadays. The laws for enforcing those orders are getting better, but you still need to be able to track down the person responsible. And for someone who chooses not to pay, there are many ways to get around this, one of which is leaving the country.

But I don't think he was expecting alimony, or a division of assets as he saw drafted. From my perspective, I believe he considered that ungrateful.

Track him down? He worked for Cisco, they could have garnished his pay. I don't think anyone would expect that draft agreement to be accepted as it was written. You can believe the he considered it ungrateful, but there is nothing that supports that belief.

 

[JBean]

Reading some of today's post, makes me wonder (if no one else), if everybody is so consumed with their own theories over who did it, that no attention has been paid to the case the "actually" laid out against BC in the first place.

To find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the state has presumed the following, and therefore must prove:

1) That BC killed NC before 6AM on the morning of July 12th.

2) To cover for that crime, he must have made a "spoofed call" at 6:40 AM to give the illusion that NC was alive at that time. This is essential to the state case, because if NC made the call, and was alive at 6:40 AM, then BC DID NOT commit this crime.

3) The only direct evidence, as opposed to circumstantial which can cut both ways, is the 7/11 Google search and the 6:40 AM phone call.

4) There is no other evidence presented that points to BC alone. The ME's testimony is inconclusive as to TOD, as was the forensic Bug guy. TOD could have been equally before 6 am as after.

5) At this point every other piece of evidence and testimony is not relevant, unless the state can show: The Google search is untainted, and BC made a 6:40 phone call.

6) Failing to show both, means there is zero evidence that BC killed NC. And the prosecution knows this, and this is why the computer evidence is so important at this late date in the trial.

Everything else we seem hellbent on discussing, is a waste of bandwidth, IMHO. Ducks, sticks, shoes, jewelry, money, eyewitnesses, prior motive, mens, and opportunity.

BC either made the Google search himself on 7/11, and made the spoofed 6:40 call, or he is innocent.......... There are no other avenues for the state, NONE

Just a quick clarification. I am just getting up to speed on this case, but as for #3, that would also be circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is typically eyewitness accounts of the crime and/or a tape of it. If direct evidence is true, then the charge is proven.

So, as I understand it, there is no direct evidence at all, which is not unusual as circumstantial evidence and direct evidence can be equally as powerful for the purpose of conviction.

 

[RaleighNative]

And to me, it looked like it was ongoing or long term.

When JA was testifying, didn't she appear to swallow a pill on camera during a break? Or am I imagining that?

Serious question. I noticed things were getting snarky on this forum today, and I stay out of that kind of thing.