April 8th wknd of Sleuthing

[cody100]

A poster made a long list of compelling CE in this case.
Perhaps someone can repost it for sunshine?

I remember the list being posted. From my memory, it was not compelling evidence to me, perhaps for you. However, repost it and let's review it.

 

[LyndyLoo]

And why would that statement to be incriminating? If he knew that, then he would have naturally said it just to help them see if the body was NC. Now if she never ran with that, then it would be different.

The only problem with Brad offering this specific information, is appears tobe either self-serving or a subconscious blurting out of what he saw when he dumped her off..
The reason I say that, Is that it has been testified to on many levels, that Nancy had been physically estranged for a very long time, not interacting at all, except to argue or give cold shoulders to each other....Then ,they sleep in separate bedrooms, Brad worked all day, and rarely saw her jog in the past 7 months, Brad did not until that fateful morning do Nancy's laundry ( and apparantly not often of his own either)..So what would he have known about her use of any clothing as a "Usual" worn piece for anything??..

Just as aside, IIRC some witnesses who did jog with her mentioned that she was "Big Chested" and usually wore more than just one Jogging Bra, and always a shirt overtop of that...

I do think that admission of that Black and Red Jogging Bra was freudian slipup on his part..perhaps an excited utterance of some sort:waitasec:

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

I know you can't buy it, and honestly that is ok. All of us have a right to our own opinions. I actually think he might be like a lot of men and didn't know what dress his wife was wearing. If that were the case, he would have gone outside and sought help from one of the females. I could see that happening with a man who loved computers, uncomfortable around her friends (for good reason), and faced with a horrible marriage. I hope we get some good evidence to show he did it if he did it.

Hi cody. thanks for being so (decently) civil in the face of a bloodhound (which I'm well known to be!)

OK. The bold above is mine. I think perhaps, irrespective of what side of (or on) the fence many of us are, the emboldened statement above, rings true. This marriage was probably not a fairytale beginning and was certainly destined for a crash. Big time. In short, their looming separation was nothing short of acrimonious. That alone leads suspicion to BC.

Nevertheless, despite such "feelings" among the "BC did-it-group" ... there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Adding up his actions, sure one or two may cause doubt. But overall? There is no doubt in my mind. To isolate one or two issues (be it bad cop syndrome or perfectly excusable) may be granted. However, when grouped together - the actions;; discovery (or none thereof); ambition; personality; economic, social, intimate and career status; deposition interviews and happenstance of this man far outweighs reasonable logic.

The cctv footage - the loss of words and explanations - and his snooping into NC's emails and phone calls - plus his history of control, womanizing and personal neglect of NC ... just rings louder than Big Ben in my ears. That despite the "incidentals" we may write off and the rest - brought out in a myriad of search warrants. Those details, the VoIP calls; his nonchalance and readiness to be SuperDad in his deposition?

No, no. He couldn't, wouldn't or didn't co-operate with the investigation. We all know that. Why? What did this man have to hide? A grisly murder? More than that ... perhaps. IMOO

Tks again for the discussion. Let's wait n see.

Polk

 

[SleuthSayer]

Not that anyone asked for it, but I will give give my overall opinion on this since it doesn't fit nicely in either "camp".

First of all, I save copies of all e-mails that I send from my work account forever. You never know when you are going to need an e-mail you sent years ago. So, I went back and looked and on 7/12/08, I forwarded the link for this article to a friend who lives in Lochmere. Actually, it wasn't exactly that article. You'll see at the top it says that it was originally posted on 7/12/08 and updated on 7/13/08. When it was originally posted, there was much less info in it. No quotes from friends, etc.

In the e-mail that I sent to the friend, other than the link to the article, all I said was "Do you know this lady from Lochmere? Husband/boyfriend did it." The reason that I said husband or boyfriend at the time was because I didn't even know if she was married. Anyway, point is, even when it was just a missing person case, I assumed that she was killed and that it was a domestic situation.

Subsequently, I learned that I knew people involved in the case. I'll leave it at that.

Now, where I am today is:

• I still think that Brad probably did it
• I hope that the prosecution has some actual evidence to prove that he did because, if he did it, I don't want him to walk
• I am very skeptical that they have such evidence
• I predict that he's going to be convicted anyway
• I think that's a bad thing from the standpoint of the legitimacy of our criminal justice system

Point is, if I zero in on this one case and think about nothing else, it wouldn't break my heart if he's found guilty with no actual evidence. But, if I step back and look at the big picture, it's scary that someone could be found guilty of murder based on a bunch of "might haves", "could haves", "can't prove he didn'ts", suspicious/unusual behavior, and the mostly hearsay testimony of a lot of the vicitim's friends who clearly hate him. It should not be the case that the accused has to prove that he didn't do something that you have only proved that he could have done.

I just think that the standard for convicting someone for murder should be very high. So far, I am not seeing anything to make me believe that they are going to get to a high standard in this case.

 

[Tink56]

The only problem with Brad offering this specific information, is appears tobe either self-serving or a subconscious blurting out of what he saw when he dumped her off..
The reason I say that, Is that it has been testified to on many levels, that Nancy had been physically estranged for a very long time, not interacting at all, except to argue or give cold shoulders to each other....Then ,they sleep in separate bedrooms, Brad worked all day, and rarely saw her jog in the past 7 months, Brad did not until that fateful morning do Nancy's laundry ( and apparantly not often of his own either)..So what would he have known about her use of any clothing as a "Usual" worn piece for anything??..

Just as aside, IIRC some witnesses who did jog with her mentioned that she was "Big Chested" and usually wore more than just one Jogging Bra, and always a shirt overtop of that...

I do think that admission of that Black and Red Jogging Bra was freudian slipup on his part..perhaps an excited utterance of some sort:waitasec:

And, if I recall, Brad did not see Nancy leave according to the deposition.

This is perplexing, since in the special writ filed by the defense, Kurtz argues that the defense was prevented from interviewing KC. According to that writ and Kurtz, KC is believed to have told someone that her mother was wearing black shorts and a white T-shirt. The complaint states that the defense was prevented from interviewing the child.

Brad,however, stated that he and KC were upstairs at 7:00 and did not see NC leave. They only "heard" her yell a request about a t-shirt.

IMO, Brad blurting out an accurate description of the sports bra Nancy was wearing is incriminating or ??????? (clairvoyant, lucky...highly unlikely)

 

[SleuthinNC]

She had many different colors of sports bras. According to Brad's statement, he never saw her in anything that morning but a white t-shirt that she slept in. He made the statement about a very specific color of sports bra after being told only that a female body had been found. Yes, I do think the fact that he described the only article of clothing found on Nancy's body is very incriminating.

Unless after going through laundry he realized that the sport bra that he remembers that was missing is the red and black one. Since the Det. did not find it necessary to document the actual questions he asked when dealing with BC we don't really have an accurate picture of the conversations either.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Unless after going through laundry he realized that the sport bra that he remembers that was missing is the red and black one. Since the Det. did not find it necessary to document the actual questions he asked when dealing with BC we don't really have an accurate picture of the conversations either.

I dont think we have heard from Det. Daniels yet, and he was the "Lead" in this case...There was alot of questions asked of Det. Young on the stand by Def. "What he knew about" or had been told, or had read about....but not necessarily that HE was the one asking those questions and documenting what was said....So we shall see what Det. Daniels has to say on the stand..

ETA~~
I would find it totally amazing that Brad would even know what Jogging Bra inventory Nancy had at that point in time..It has been testified that Nancy did only her own and kids laundry..NOT Brads. And most certainly Brad had not done laundry for Nancy for a long long time..I would especially LOL If they could prove somehow just when she purchased that jogging bra..Wouldnt it be interesting if she had only purchased it a month or so earlier??..

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

(edited for space) I just think that the standard for convicting someone for murder should be very high. So far, I am not seeing anything to make me believe that they are going to get to a high standard in this case.

Indeed, SleuthSayer. Seems the more scientifically detailed and pronounced "actual evidence" becomes - i.e.: DNA, eye-witness, smoking gun, cctv footage capturing the deed on film ... the more careful the perps are to ensure their testimony remains, at the very least, undetermined. That is - the more clever they become. Then - wherein lies real justice? Wherefore goes logic?

It means we'll end up with a system that says "he did it, yes, but you just didn't prove it...". Sometimes we, as morally decent, civilized and competent citizens have to string circumstances together and let logic, accompanied by events, scream out for victims.

If Nancy called you from the grave - whose voice, in your gut of gut instinct and basis what we know re the marriage, events and timeline, do you think she'd call out to you as her final betrayer?

A random killer while out jogging, with zero evidence thereto (circumstantial or otherwise) ... an upset neighbor, a spurned suitor .... or Brad, her feuding, angry, bitter, controlling and zealous estranged husband. Who had the most to lose? Who wanted out? Who held revenge? Who controlled her? Who cut her out of his life and deplored any iota of happiness or earnings she may have had?

No-one's painting Nancy as the Mona Lisa. They were not a match in heaven. But ... murder is never an option. IMOO

 

[LyndyLoo]

DNA evidence in any intimate partner murder, is NO SLAM dunk ..They lived to gether so finger prints at the crime scene would mean nadda..DNA on her or her things would mean Nadda..

I have heard of convictions where solid alibi's were apparant, however it was later shown as a "murder for hire"...Sorry, if the circumstantial case only points one direction, then guess what..The did it..and I am not comfy cozy with allowing any perp to walk free cause one has to have concrete, direct evidence..IF that were the case, Im afraid most careful, cunning felons would be walking the streets and placing their next victim at risk..

Some have gotten away with it and went on to murder their next partner and the next one too....sad but true..and unfortunately it wouldnt get resolved until too late:maddening:

 

[LyndyLoo]

I found an interesting link ..the article (part1) was done by someone who investigated Intimate Partner Murders...If you read this and compare the symptomolgy here, there are some very astute observations...Its termed as the "Eraser Killer" Havent seen part 2..
What Makes Eraser Killers Different (Part I)http://marileestrong.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-makes-eraser-killers-different.html

snippet~~


• He is generally intelligent, though he also greatly overestimates his talents. He believes he is smarter and better than the rest of us, certainly smarter than the police and more deserving in all ways than his victim. He often has considerable familiarity with the law and how police work. He may have read up on these matters diligently to help him with his plan. Or he may have used his unusual ability for absorbing things around him, observing with the cold eye of a lizard in the desert how other predators kill and get away with it, because getting away with murder is his goal.
• To achieve that goal he may follow one of two distinct strategies. Either he can erase the victim’s body by destroying it entirely or secreting it where it won’t be found, or, he can rearrange the crime or stage a wholly false scenario to erase all connection between himself and any criminal act. Either way, he appears to remain free and clear of any involvement in a his act

 

[Palomine]

Brad is one lucky guy...wanted out of his marriage/with the kid's
He is very lucky Nancy got randomly murdered after she got the courage to divorce him

 

[jilly]

I remember the list being posted. From my memory, it was not compelling evidence to me, perhaps for you. However, repost it and let's review it.

Hi Cody! Out of curiosity (and I ask this with respect) how many criminal trials have you followed?

Each piece of evidence does not have to be compelling. imo

For your information:

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

 

[gracielee]

gracielee,

thanks for a segueway into a comment I was going to post today anyway.

I was thinking about the CE in this case, and how there appears to be some feeling that ce is not enough to convict, even though that is most of the evidence that is presented in this type of cases.

I started thinking about some fairly famous cases that were solved with only CE, although "solved" does not actually apply in one of the cases, it was never fully ascertained that the person did not commit the crime, and no one else was ever placed on trial for it.

John F. Kennedy - Blamed on Lee Harvey Oswald. Not fully proven if he did it or acted alone, but only evidence was CE.



/Martin Luther King - Solved only with CE.

Robert Kennedy - shooting was done in front of many witnesses, but only CE to prove that Sirhan Sirhan was guilty, and there have been allegations that others pulled the trigger or participated.

Tate/Labianca - Charles Manson and the members of his "family" convicted with only CE, including witness testimony.

Before the advent of DNA, *most* cases were solved by CE. Putting all the pieces of the puzzle together. Some cases there were fewer pieces, but other cases, and I consider this to be one of the latter, had so many pieces to the puzzle, it was easier to see the whole picture. The earliest case that captured my attention was the Lindburgh kidnapping. I read a book about it for American History in high school, and it fascinated me. In fact, I've always thought Hauptman wasn't the actual kidnapper. I had an elderly man for Am Hist., someone who actually *remembered* the kidnapping and subsequent days, weeks, months, etc. That also peaked my interest in history. Listening to people, questioning/talking to older people, to actually *hear* about the old times, not simply read about them. But that's a whole 'nother issue.

 

[gracielee]

And why would that statement to be incriminating? If he knew that, then he would have naturally said it just to help them see if the body was NC. Now if she never ran with that, then it would be different.

Did you miss the video of the seizure of Nancy Coopers clothes in the search warrant? Nancy had a whole table full of sports bras, and not a single other red & black one, other than the one she was found in. Yes, she always ran in a sports bra, but unless she only wore that same bra, day after day, she didn't ALWAYS wear the one she just happened to have been found in.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Indeed, SleuthSayer.
.
.
.
If Nancy called you from the grave - whose voice, in your gut of gut instinct and basis what we know re the marriage, events and timeline, do you think she'd call out to you as her final betrayer?

WTH? A bit too metaphysical for me.

 

[5bigfish5]

Brad had to be ticked that Nancy told anyone their business...true abusers always look good on the outside and bad on the inside...
unless you know an abuser, you would never know in social situations or work that they are an abuser

She did have a longer leash than most, I admit that.

However, when one is doing some DEEP contemplation, they need space. Planning a murder and a "perfect" cover up takes time and lots of thought, In My Opinion.

 

[cityslick]

Did you miss the video of the seizure of Nancy Coopers clothes in the search warrant? Nancy had a whole table full of sports bras, and not a single other red & black one, other than the one she was found in. Yes, she always ran in a sports bra, but unless she only wore that same bra, day after day, she didn't ALWAYS wear the one she just happened to have been found in.

I hear what you're (and most others) are trying to say, I just have a hard time understanding how he would volunteer the once piece of information he knows for sure she was wearing when 2 days prior he had no issue misremembering the color of the dress he killed her in.

There are other examples of these kind of inconsistancies, and most come back with the excuse 'who knows what Brad was thinking'. He went through all this trouble of faking phone calls, pulling the mind trick on DD to make her think the dress was black, throwing out ducks/sticks/router/fxo card/his shoes/her shoes but yet he offers up the one piece of information that would incriminate him.

 

[cody100]

Hi Cody! Out of curiosity (and I ask this with respect) how many criminal trials have you followed?

Each piece of evidence does not have to be compelling. imo

For your information:

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Actually, it may surprise you, but I worked in this area for years and am well aware of physical evidence vs. circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, I have witnessed numerous trials over the years, although view did I see all of the trial. I understand exactly how each side of the table operates (defense vs prosecution), and I very well understand how witnesses can change their testimony depending on which side is asking the question and on which side has brought them into the courtroom. I know how everyone is covering their bases and what constitutes good police investigations and bad ones. I also know what makes up good scientific examinations and evidence and what constitutes bad scientific examinations. I also have looked at many jurors and read confusion, agreement, shock, and boredom. So, I guess I am not new to this, but I also have never been in a forum such as this before. My observations so far are: Most in here are pretty certain that BC is guilty of murdering NC, a few are still open minded about it ( a good idea since the trial is not over by a long shot), and I haven't seen anyone in here who 100 percent is convinced he is innocent (another good idea since the trial isn't over and he is the most likely suspect). What is amazing in here is the depth of passion that everyone has for their particular belief. This isn't bad either. I do feel that some are quick to jump on someone who has a different opinion. And, that is not a good thing since this forum is all about exchanging ideas. I appreciate the opportunity to be in here and learn and exchange ideas from different backgrounds. I hope that answered your question. I have a good description of circumstantial evidence that I had heard before but have heard again recently: A prosecutor shows a witness of a wet driveway and says it rained before this pic was taken. Then the defense shows the witness a pic of water springlers close by the driveway and says it was caused by the springlers. It is the jurors to decide which set of facts apply to this circumstantial evidence.

 

[5bigfish5]

Brad is one lucky guy...wanted out of his marriage/with the kid's
He is very lucky Nancy got randomly murdered after she got the courage to divorce him

Seems to be an epidemic of that Nationwide. WHEN are they going to learn, it is cheaper to keep her?

 

[Just the Fax]

Cody said: "I haven't seen anyone in here who 100 percent is convinced he is innocent (another good idea since the trial isn't over and he is the most likely suspect)."
:laughcry: