Theories

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
rwesafe,

You have hit on one of my hot buttons, why is it that some can emphatically say that BC did this or BC did that, yet when someone merely suggests another theory they are attacked for having a different thought and told directly they are wrong to even assume anyone other than BC may have murdered NC. It is possible, I thought this forum was for all theories on what may have happened, not just ways BC could have done it. Remember none of us knows for sure who did it, bouncing ideas around is what gets your mind thinking about other ideas.

However, when we bounce around ideas, it is important to discount the ones that don't make sense, isn't it? When things don't add up, we can discount that theory.

If we are way off where LE seems to be, I don't think we're on the right track!

JMO!
 
Anderson, that is a fantastic, spot-on post. I think it's incumbent on all of us to work with reality and facts and not just make up facts that don't exist or make up facts that we wish existed so it would show someone else's involvement.

I'm surprised by just how wrong some people get the very basics of the case, when the case documents are RIGHT THERE in their own special folder in this forum. IMHO there's no excuse for continuing to spout incorrect information when it's been pointed out what the correct/factual information is and where one can find it.
 
rwesafe,

You have hit on one of my hot buttons, why is it that some can emphatically say that BC did this or BC did that, yet when someone merely suggests another theory they are attacked for having a different thought and told directly they are wrong to even assume anyone other than BC may have murdered NC. It is possible, I thought this forum was for all theories on what may have happened, not just ways BC could have done it. Remember none of us knows for sure who did it, bouncing ideas around is what gets your mind thinking about other ideas.

Ummm, I'm not sure what this is in reference too? I thought this forum was for all therories as well, but my theory that BC may not have done it has been very unpopular....my theory that JA may have had something to do with it has also been very unpopular. Basically, I'm very unpopular :crazy:
 
Anderson, that is a fantastic, spot-on post. I think it's incumbent on all of us to work with reality and facts and not just make up facts that don't exist or make up facts that we wish existed so it would show someone else's involvement.

I'm surprised by just how wrong some people get the very basics of the case, when the case documents are RIGHT THERE in their own special folder in this forum. IMHO there's no excuse for continuing to spout incorrect information when it's been pointed out what the correct/factual information is and where one can find it.

Thanks SG. I really have to give you and others credit for teaching me how to think about the way investigations are carried out. You are right: the information is right here in the forum.:)
 
Anderson, that is a fantastic, spot-on post. I think it's incumbent on all of us to work with reality and facts and not just make up facts that don't exist or make up facts that we wish existed so it would show someone else's involvement.

I'm surprised by just how wrong some people get the very basics of the case, when the case documents are RIGHT THERE in their own special folder in this forum. IMHO there's no excuse for continuing to spout incorrect information when it's been pointed out what the correct/factual information is and where one can find it.

It is all speculation, conjecture and opinion, there are very few facts.....and in case you guys missed it..this is the THEORY thread.....facts do not play into theories....please refer to the earlier definition of a theory if you are still confused. No one is forcing your group to post in this thread, so why not let those of us think that BC might not have done it, speculate to our hearts content? Geez.
 
It is all speculation, conjecture and opinion, there are very few facts.....and in case you guys missed it..this is the THEORY thread.....facts do not play into theories....please refer to the earlier definition of a theory if you are still confused. No one is forcing your group to post in this thread, so why not let those of us think that BC might not have done it, speculate to our hearts content? Geez.

I feel very strongly about when people make up information that is just plain incorrect...for instance last night someone wanted to know "why JA was calling 911 and saying Nancy was killed/murdered a mere 5 to 6 hours after she left her house." They were using that very 'fact' (an incorrect fact) to surmise that means JA must be involved. And the reality is that the statement JA actually made was that her friend suffers from Crohn's disease and may be having an episode or have possibly fallen and gotten hurt. And then she further testified in court, under oath, that when her phone rang at 1:30pm she assumed it was Nancy getting back to her and was surprised it wasn't--that it was Brad and he was saying Nancy still was not home. These are the facts. The word "murder" or "killed" was never uttered.

The TRUTH is that JA never said that the poster said, and what she did say is right there on the 911 call! I don't care what the theories are or aren't, but if someone posts an out and out lie or is totally off-base about an important fact of the case and I read it, know what the truth is and where to reference the actual fact or statement, but say nothing, then I think that's a disservice as a member of the forum.

I understand the value of theories...it's good stuff. But can you explain to me why a theory based on a complete fabrication of a fact or evidence (and yes, a 911 call is evidence) is a useful thing? Would it be better to work with incorrect info? Is that what everyone prefers? If yes, then I won't bother letting people know what the real info is and where it can be found when I see a lie or misstatement. :confused:
 
I would be interested to know how much the police looked into Nancy's relationships with her circle outside of Brad.

When this first happened I wondered about JA calling in the police so quickly - Then we started hearing/seeing all the negative testimony about BC... so I thought maybe her concern was founded ...

THEN it "got curiouser" that she said on the stand she never saw them arguing or fighting... That makes me think her concern was either
1. ALL from what she HEARD from NC
or
2. Contrived concern ...

So - I can see the JA theory a bit ... only because as with BC - things don't TOTALLY add up.
 
It was a theory that the world was round, when everyone else believed it to be flat, no facts just theory until facts proved it. None of us have any idea what the CPD is looking at or who they are looking at until such time as they let us know. Also, they can be intensely investigating someone and no one knows including the person being investigated. BC may be guilty, he may be innocent same goes for JA, the only difference is JA is being given the benefit of the doubt, and still has her constitutional rights intact.
 
The currently known facts do not support the theory that BC killed NC, if so he would have been arrested. A need exists to look beyond the known facts, JMHO. We currently have a "he said, she said" situation, and not one eye witness to anything other than that.
 
The currently known facts do not support the theory that BC killed NC, if so he would have been arrested. A need exists to look beyond the known facts, JMHO. We currently have a "he said, she said" situation, and not one eye witness to anything other than that.

So you're saying you don't believe the DA is simply taking his time to make sure the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s crossed? You believe that an arrest made, say, a month from now, if it happens to be BC, is incorrect, because he should have been arrested earlier?

I believe it has been stated a number of times that we don't know everything LE knows. This is probably why BC did not take the stand... so those facts did not come out and taint the custody trial in the Rentz's favor.
 
You are a bit stuck on the i's and t's, LE does not work that way, get the perp behind bars as quickly as possible. The DA will move ASAP when evidence becomes available. You are correct no one wants "egg on their face", but if the evidence was as compelling as some think, he would be behind bars now. If that evidence becomes available a month or a year from now, and he is "collared" so be it.
 
You are a bit stuck on the i's and t's, LE does not work that way, get the perp behind bars as quickly as possible. The DA will move ASAP when evidence becomes available. You are correct no one wants "egg on their face", but if the evidence was as compelling as some think, he would be behind bars now. If that evidence becomes available a month or a year from now, and he is "collared" so be it.

I don't know the DA, but seems several posters know the way he works and seem to think he works that way.

They may still be discovering evidence. Some cases have taken a looong time to solve, and arrest someone... I don't know anyone who has said they don't think HE'S guilty!
 
Quite a few (30) posts were just deleted because many posts were quoted and there's no time to edit out each quote.

This is a theory thread. Either play nice or you won't be playing at all. Let's try this again.
 
I want to set the record straight and there will be no further WARNINGS given. WS is a discussion forum and ALL OPINIONS AND THEORIES ARE WELCOME. It's A ok to agree to disagree but there will be NO personal attacks on ANY members. There will be NO bashing of another if one believes BC is innocent until proven guilty that is ones right and if others believe that they feel the DA has enough evidence to find a jury of BC peers that will convict him that's fine. BC has NOT been charged with ANY crime at this time. So EVERYONE play nice or timeouts will be given.
Thank You
WS Staff
Sincerely,
WindChime
 
I am still of the opinion that Friday had 3 elements to make BC upset, real upset with possible rage that escalated out of control...

1) fighting over money once again
2) NC correcting BC at the BBQ over not undersanding Katie
3) painting plans after a) he had made tennis plans b) he had to watch the girls again c) knowing it would "rock the boat"
 
One of my theories has been she was attacked by two, given the condition of her body when found. I think she was restrained by one while another strangled her.

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3776692/

Assaults can happen in daylight. A witness reported seeing Nancy run, and a phone call was made from Nancys cell phone to Brads and it was locked.

It will be interesting to get more details about this assault posted above. The woman is lucky to be alive.

This attack occurred ~2 miles (as the crow flies) from the dump site and very near where Jenna Nielsen's body was found.
 
Yes, I looked on Google Earth, it is certainly in the same vicinity. Since Rosemary Zednick's affidavit, I wonder if Nancy did run on Lilly Atkins over to Holly Springs to Fielding. Will be watching for further developments/information regarding this attack.

I know CPD claims isolated and not random, I don't find that to be a trustworthy statement at this time.

The trails are no longer safe, I don't care what area you live in. I now jog at Golds Gym on Kildaire Farm, North Hills or in RTP. I've had no luck in finding someone who can jog at my pace. Speaking of RTP, I gotta get moving!
 
Yes, I looked on Google Earth, it is certainly in the same vicinity. Since Rosemary Zednick's affidavit, I wonder if Nancy did run on Lilly Atkins over to Holly Springs to Fielding. Will be watching for further developments/information regarding this attack.

I know CPD claims isolated and not random, I don't find that to be a trustworthy statement at this time.

The trails are no longer safe, I don't care what area you live in. I now jog at Golds Gym on Kildaire Farm, North Hills or in RTP. I've had no luck in finding someone who can jog at my pace. Speaking of RTP, I gotta get moving!

What pace is that? :waitasec:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
72
Guests online
1,245
Total visitors
1,317

Forum statistics

Threads
602,173
Messages
18,136,126
Members
231,261
Latest member
birdistheword14
Back
Top