I really don't want to go OT, but it really is all about the money with these guys...that and faulty wiring in their brains.I agree wholeheartedly with this post. The qualities you outlined have been a common denominator in many of these cases. It seems like many of these men get resentful that the money they make is being spent on a wife and children, too.
Ok...forget the cloning. (Just kidding!)
And let's not forget his trip to the store can't be proven...
I really don't want to go OT, but it really is all about the money with these guys...that and faulty wiring in theor brains.
I really don't want to go OT, but it really is all about the money with these guys...that and faulty wiring in theor brains.
Last night. there was a discussion on telling the girls about their mother's death.
Why didn't Dad (BC) tell the girls about mom missing and later about her death? He was supposedly with them until Wed/Thurs night.
Why did it all have to be laid at the feet of the grandparents and Nancy's family??
Diana Duncan lives directly across the street from Nancy. Why would Nancy carry a license to walk across the street? Cell phone and keys I can understand, but her license has me curious. She did not have to drive down the street for the party Friday night. Was it put there by BC since it is what she normally carries, or is Nancy so organized to have it out the night before?:waitasec:
SNIP
Wudge, I think your expectation for the entire public to presume Brad's innocent is unreasonable.
SNIP
The only place where brad is entitled to non-biasness is in a court of law and only from people deciding his guilt and from the judge.
Hi again, I posted in the last thread, but not sure if anyone caught it. I am new here. Can you refresh my memory. I don't remember reading about the liscence. I skipped a few (not many) pages here & there to stay caught up, but I don't know anything about the liscence. Where was it found?
If my expectations are unreasonable, then our Constitution and the statutes that support our presumption of innocence standard are unreasonable and should be amended and revised to ensure the presumption of innocence is not unnecessary poisoined. A jury cannot reliably be expected to impartially judge circumstantial evidence if a severly poisoned jury pool has a point of view of guilty.
Dotting all their "i" s and crossing their "t" s ?Originally Posted by wirehair View Post
My neighbor called on his way to work this morning. Cary LE was on Holly Springs Road stopping traffic and asking if anyone saw anything last Saturday. This was about 7am this morning.
Why would LE be doing this questioning if there was any forensic evidence found during the very extensive search of the home and cars that showed anything had occurred at the house? If there were not some indication that she actually did leave to go jogging that day, there would be no reason to be asking drivers in the area if they had seen anyone or anything the previous week. It seems obvious that they would not think that someone would be killed at their home during the night and that cleaning supplies were purchased at 4am, but the body was not disposed of until it was completely light at 7am!
They must have some reason to believe that NC could have been running in that area at 7am the previous week.
Maybe she refused to do his laundry so he went to buy the detergent. Why would a person buy laundry detergent with bleach to clean up a murder scene ? I have never heard of using that, bleach yes, but not detergent with bleach.
Ok...forget the cloning. (Just kidding!)
Presumption of innocence only applies in court, not in public opinion.
That is also the reason why change of venue exists.
You cannot police public opinion, humanbeings are hardwired to form prejudices.