April 8th wknd of Sleuthing

[borndem]

Yeah, and I'm trying to put myself into Brad's head - okay Nancy called him how many times on Friday about the allowance. He let most of all her calls go to voice mail. So he's on his way to the store and Nancy calls him - don't you know (if she were really still alive) he would be thinking, "damn, she's calling me to tell me not to forget to stop at the ATM or either get cash back at the store and give me my allowance," and he would have let that go to voice mail like he did the day before. Pure conjecture on my part. I'm just trying to think like the scum that he is. But noooooooooooo, he answers the phone and lo and behold it's Nancy. Uh-huh, no way, nope, didn't happen.

Yes, you can take that to the bank, less0305.

NC would have been the very last person in the universe that he would want to hear on the phone if she were alive; he had a lot on his mind and he knew she was dead, dead, dead -- but he had to answer that phone to set up the rest of his alibi. He did have caller-id, yes?? Oh, how he must have felt so smug when it rang. Grrrrrrrrr. Bless her heart.

 

[cody100]

Cummings paid a video service to do the editing.
The guy was in the courtroom and obviously missed a few frames.
What do you expect? Kurtz popped his edit request on the state Thursday morning and they had to scramble to comply.

The request had previously been discussed and the editing service had deleted certain things. They were given to Kurtz the night before to check over. He then discovered that it didn't remove all references to certain things. So the judge then told Cummins to remove those additional things before showing it that day. If this were not the case, do you think this judge would have agreed to make this right when the blunder occurred. It was a direct disregard for a judge's order by Cummins. I know because I heard everything that happened.

 

[LyndyLoo]

No, but there is data traffic at 6:25AM.
Paul also told us how easy it was to set a call up for a future time.[/QUOT



I didn't think they had been able so far to show proof that the call was made by BC. Did I miss that? They should he had knowledge to do it but had no record to indicate he did. If I missed that, let me know. I think that call is a big ticket item in this case.

You are correct, the FBI data and interpretations of call logs have NOT been testified to. The Cisco witness only outlined 10 ways to do it. So that info will have to be applied to the AT&T data..and Puter data..

I seem to recall brad stated he got Nancy's call while in his car between the 2 HT trips..and had to go back due to Detergent request from Nancy at 640AM. Well, why couldnt Brad have initiated that call (within the Cisco system) to his homephone which was set to foreward to his IPhone..?? Of course he could, and I do believe I heard in testimony that such calls would indicate the forewarded call would indicate the homephone as the initiator of the call.

So All we need to hear to confirm that scenerio is his laptop data, AT&T data, and the Cisco system Manager configurations to have that call blown out of the water for Brad...I tend to think that is why Defense has worked so hard to deflect all this technical testimony...BUT we shall see..

BTW..I SURE HOPE I am around to hear the FBI testimony..:twocents:

 

[Just the Fax]

The request had previously been discussed and the editing service had deleted certain things. They were given to Kurtz the night before to check over. He then discovered that it didn't remove all references to certain things. So the judge then told Cummins to remove those additional things before showing it that day. If this were not the case, do you think this judge would have agreed to make this right when the blunder occurred. It was a direct disregard for a judge's order by Cummins. I know because I heard everything that happened.

I guess you missed the point of my post?
Cummings hired a video service and they also did the last minute editing. The guy was in the courtroom.
If you want to blame someone for the honest mistake, blame him...not Cummings.

Also, like Cummings yelled, if Kurtz wants to call him dishonest, he can ask to have him disbarred.
Kurtz was totally out of line...yet again.

 

[LyndyLoo]

What date was this photo again?
Do we know for a fact this was the green dress?

Ohhh YOU are GOOD..yes, that it and it was captured (pic from video) in the video taken before forensics came into house on July 16th 9AM.to commence with the search warrant initiated July 15th late afternoon)..SO IF it was indeed washed it had to have been before this..or else it never did get washed??..Who knows..Has there been testimony that is was on the back of a chair..in DR?..I dont recall that at all..Course I have "Sometimers Disease" :floorlaugh:

 

[SleuthinNC]

Did BC tell JA that Nancy's car and cell phone were at home when they spoke on the phone? Can't get that part of her testimony to play.

 

[MountE]

CC was very nervous on the stand. She was asked under cross about the conversation she had with NC the morning of 7/11 at 5AM. She was interviewed by police on 7/12 and *never* mentioned anything about the paint plans NC "allegedly" had with JA. It wasn't until August that she finally told police that yes, at 5AM on Friday 7/11, NC told her she had plans to paint at JA's the next day. The problem is, JA and NC supposedly did not make those arrangements until the evening of 7/11. WHY would she withhold that information the day Nancy went missing? This is very suspicious.

My theory on that is it was a bit illegal what they were doing. Paint jobs for cash and maybe that's why they didn't want to bring it out in the open unless they really had to.

 

[cody100]

I guess you missed the point of my post?
Cummings hired a video service and they also did the last minute editing. The guy was in the courtroom.
If you want to blame someone for the honest mistake, blame him...not Cummings.

Well, since you keep hammering at this, the DA is the ultimate one responsible for making sure everything was taken out of this 6 hour deposition that could be more prejudicial than it already was. So, no, I do blame Cummins and the other DA's there. And, they showed hostile attitude when they knew darn well that had been screwed up. This had been worked on before that morning so Kurtz didn't just spring it on them then.

 

[222NCMom]

If we are going to look at things down to a minute's accuracy, did someone testify that it had been confirmed that the time-of-day for the AT&T cell network and for the HT video were synchronized in some way that day?

I honestly don't know the answer to that. Did someone testify to this?

I would hope and think they synced (?) up times but something interesting to me is the big difference in my cell phone time displayed on my iPhone AT&T which is 6:20pm now and my iPad displayed time which is time Warner roadrunner wifi connection 6:31pm. Why? And would my bill, or his, reflect differences?

 

[borndem]

But you understand that makes no sense right? He washed it, but put it in the laundry basket, only to put it on a chair the following day?

It is my impression that it was in the laundry basket before it was washed. After it was washed, IMHO, it was then put on the back of the chair in the dining room. BC had clothes all over the house, trying to dry them. The dress just happened, coincidentally, I'm sure, to be the item on the top of the other clothing items on the back of that chair. It's not that confusing to me. :twocents: But this poor old horse is nearly dead now, I think...

 

[LyndyLoo]

So that was on the 12th, correct?

Now I have to ask, why would they take any pictures on the 12th??? Wasnt Nancy a missing person at that point (wasnt found until evening of 14th) and not ID'd until the 15th..At that point, they had asked about what nancy wore the night before yet at that point it was Blue, no Orange..NO Black???? I have no idea why they would have a pic of over the back of a chair??

The only thing I can think of is IF Brad talking to LE before Nancy found brought it to attention of them, and laid it over back of chair, OKAY, however why wouldnt they take it then into custody or evidence???

Sorry, But the dress thingy just isnt so germaine to the case (IMO) to prove anything other than Brad not very observant, or helpful...Lying or just plain deceptive about that dress doesnt seem to the key to prove Brad's guilt at this point :rocker:

 

[Just the Fax]

I would hope and think they synced (?) up times but something interesting to me is the big difference in my cell phone time displayed on my iPhone AT&T which is 6:20pm now and my iPad displayed time which is time Warner roadrunner wifi connection 6:31pm. Why? And would my bill, or his, reflect differences?

The times were synced

 

[Wyn]

Something to think about and a need for clarification.

In the deposition BC mentioned that he recalls being at a red light when he received the call from NC at 6:40am and thus this would be Cary Parkway and Tryon Rd intersection. We know this call lasted 38 seconds. I recall that the def team is indicating that HT video shows BC walking into HT about 1 minute later. This is the part that I need to look into to verify the time that BC actually is seen entering HT the second time.

Today I did some driving tests. From that intersection where BC must have received the call I started a timer when I turned left onto Tryon Rd. The fastest time I achieved, with no stops at lights, was 2minutes 20 seconds to get to the HT parking lot. So did BC receive the call while he was stopped at the traffic light at the Cary Parkway and Tryon Rd intersection like he claims.

Also, I know it has been discussed before, but why would BC take this route on his second trip to HT. It seems that leaving his house the easiest and fastest way to get to HT would be to turn right onto Lochmere which intersects with Kildaire Farm Rd. A right hand turn onto KFR and then HT is up on the left.[/QUOTE]

Intially I thought the same way. If you go to google and put in the Wallsburg address and the Harris Teeter address and look at both routes, the Tryon Road does turn out to be the most convenient. Driving almost two miles on Lochmere Drive at 35 mph will be slower than taking Cary Parkway to Tryon, then Tryon to Kildaire. That time of day, with virtually no traffic, means when he rolls up to those left hand turns, he'll get a green turn arrow almost instantly. The odds of being stopped on Tryon for speeding (say 55 mph) that time of day is probably null.

Several people have mentioned how they think Brad may have tossed the shoes/ducks/etc. into the trash bin at Harris Teeter. If it were me, I'd have driven right out of Harris Teeter, crossed Kildaire, and taken the street the runs through the back of Waverly Place. Not only would the Whole Foods be a better place to drop something you want to go "missing", there's a whole lot of other businesses there. Wouldn't have slowed him down more than sixty seconds or so and he could make a right out of Waverly Place onto Tryon and be on his way.

 

[CaryCanuck]

The animals in sink have always bothered me, too. I know in the picture we saw of the bathroom you could only see the edge of them, but it looked like the sink was pretty full of them. I've washed enough stuffed animals to know if you don't get them dried somehow the get mildewed quickly. I wonder if anyone every asked Brad why they were there? Maybe it's something or maybe it's nothing, but it's another thing that looks odd to me.

And here's where Brad's dress story goes off the rails for me. Brad says as soon as he got to the party Nancy told him about the stain and she had a wet spot on her dress where she had already washed it out. She was at the party for about an hour before BC got there. I think that we can all agree Nancy shared lots about her life with friends (and sometimes strangers.) But she doesn't mention a stain on her dress to ANYONE at the party? She doesn't ask for club soda? Baking soda? A stain stick? Anything? She doesn't just run back across the street and throw it in the washer herself and put something else on? No one at the party saw her with a stain on her dress? No one saw her walking around with a wet patch on her dress? Everything I know about Nancy has come from affidavits and testimony. I agree with CD, she would have drawn attention to herself if she spilled anything. Am I supposed to believe Brad is the ONLY person she told about spilling the wine and the ONLY person who saw a big wet patch on her dress?

That just doesn't make sense to me at all. And if that story doesn't make sense, that I have to ask myself "Why would Brad tell that story?"

VERY odd and not the type of thing I'd tell my spouse after waving my finger in his face telling him how angry I was with him in front of a bunch of neighbors!

 

[Just the Fax]

Wyn
Did you get up at 6:15AM to run your test:floorlaugh:

 

[borndem]

Yup, another southern thing. People do love their ducks down here. :great: Just open an issue of Southern Living. :woohoo:

Yeah, they shoot 'em or eat 'em or both. Quack, quack. :rubberducky:

 

[Just the Fax]

It is my impression that it was in the laundry basket before it was washed. After it was washed, IMHO, it was then put on the back of the chair in the dining room. BC had clothes all over the house, trying to dry them. The dress just happened, coincidentally, I'm sure, to be the item on the top of the other clothing items on the back of that chair. It's not that confusing to me. :twocents: But this poor old horse is nearly dead now, I think...

bordem, if that were the case, Brad continued laundry after CPD arrived on 7-12-08. I think he washed the dress 1st thing Sat am and placed it down in the basket so it was not obviously out to be taken as evidence. He realized he had to produce it after the question came up about her attire that night.

 

[Wyn]

Wyn
Did you get up at 6:15AM to run your test:floorlaugh:

No, but I've been on those same streets at 6:15am before! I've been through Lochmere twice today.........Tryon Road once............. :floorlaugh:

ETA: Why do runners not only feel the need to run through Lochmere in the bike lane (sidewalk too hard, yada yada yada) but run on the WHITE LINE? It's not like the lane isn't small enough without having to dodge a runner AND avoid the tree roots growing into the roadways some days! Ok, end of rant.............

 

[LyndyLoo]

Sorry, Im not quoting posts right now, as it seems to be going all askew..So will ask this question....Did NOT Brad say he went home THEN returned to HT for Detergent?..thus would explain the different footwear?..SOOOOO IF Nancy called him while in car and he turned around to go back to HT..WHY oh WHY would he then be wearing DIFFERENT Footwear??

Yikes the more ya break things down, the more complex things seem to get for my weeee brain:floorlaugh:..NOW,, Did Brad lie, or did brad Mis-speak or did Brad do a little dumping??? So many questions :waitasec::waitasec:

Yikes, Now my edit has become a quote..Sorry:banghead:

 

[cody100]

Brad went home with milk, then he says he was asked by NC to go back to the store for detergent. It was on this trip he was called to get juice also. Most Canadians I know take off shoes at the door. So, it wouldn't surprise me that he would return to the store with a different pair. Nothing there out of the ordinary.