Those who don't think Brad did it. Who else had all three.....means, motive and opportunity? And be real here.
As stated above, if it was random who knows? I have read these suggested possibilities:
*NC witnessed something illegal going on
*attack/assault, possibly interrupted by someone who remains unaware they were doing so
its not impossible that the bra was still on because it was the hardest thing to remove.
I personally think that if it wasn't BC (yes, BTW I include BC as a possibility even though I am not convinced of his guilt), it was someone else she knew:
*NC met someone at a prearranged place/time, her death was accidental during the dangerous activity and the paramour paniced at the thought of the reprecussions and dumped her (explains state of clothing and earring still on, cause of death, no motive/means/opp explanation necessary)
also suggested by others,
*NC could have been pressuring someone (for $? for something else) and using information that person wished to keep under wraps to do so. (m/m/o)
*NC's planned actions for the future (i.e. I am going to tell so and so something - I am leaving, whatever) may have been significant enough to someone that a fight ensued leading to her death.
These are a few, and which of these theories can be dismissed out of hand due to lack of evidence? in fact, most of these don't require you to have to accept questionable CE, i.e. therefore no need to surmise spoofed calls. Most of these also make for better and more reasonable explanations of CE (i.e. why the earring still on, why the bodt half dressed, why people may have seen her) and account for the fact that no physical evidence against BC exists.
The google map is the one piece of evidence that is not accounted for, but the defense plans to address this and the pros has done/will do everything in its power to keep testimony about its unreliability or intentional manipulation out of testimony. But, what if BC knew when/where(generally) NC was planning to meet someone (via communication intercept) on the morning of 7/12, and he looked up the meeting place out of couriousity?
How reliable is all of the other CE evidence?
cleaning the garage? NC asked him to do it, this has been testified to.
two right shoes on the shelf? According to testimony, there is still a pair of NC shoes missing (Saucony), and the CPD stated they do not 'consider missing' the right partner for the 2 lefts.
spotless trunk? I know a few people with spotless trunks due to lack of use, if something spilled in my trunk - yes, I would clean it and no I would not clean the rest of the car to the same degree at the same time.
BC cellphone/data activity on 7/12? most of it was explained by the Cisco guy (PG) down to the buttons he pressed and the reasons he may have pressed them. The 6:25 data activity? Could have been any number of non-nefarious thing - literally.
BC spying on NC communications? I believe he did, but I don't believe every husband in a bad marriage who does this kills his wife.
BC lying about certain things: taking into account the context and motivation for the lies, he was the #1 suspect from day 1 (actually from hour 5), so he did lie about things that would implicate him.
NC always wearing the necklace: not reasonable to believe to begin with, and then given the "request" for pics of her only with it on + coordinated affidavits + excluding those who won't play (CDitt)...well...
There's more CE I could write similar things about.
When the state's case is not the only way to explain the "buffet" of CE, perhaps not even the most logical way - you are left with either gut instinct, or having to view each piece of CE, no matter how unsupported, no matter how much of a stretch, through the BC guilty lens.
To view the collection of CE as both a clear path to his guilt and or as the only possible explanation = BC guilt is impossible at this point IMO.