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
