Trial Date set and Trial Proceeding Discussion Here

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm surprised that having heard about the case gets people dismissed from being a juror. Normally the bar is not quite that high.

I actually suspect that Kurtz is purposely dragging his feet, trying very hard to buy as much time as he can before the trial starts, and that it's not really about people having seen WRAL or read the N&O. They tried to get a stay for the trial using the "we don't have all the discovery" reason, which didn't fly with the judge. They want more time, for whatever reason. So now they will drag out voir dire and dismiss everyone they possibly can so that 12 jurors are not seated anytime soon.

That's my current theory, anyway.
 
RaleighNC said:
I don't know how you find those rock dwellers. And - as folks have noted - there's many that seem to think that Brad is very innocent, just as it seems easier to find the Brad=guilty folks here. I'd hope for a smart mix, myself.

I'd like to think that I am analytical enough that - even having read through a lot of the documentation on this case - I could still be impartial / be open to facts. I know the odds are that he killed her (strictly odds - women are usually killed by their spouses) but agree that the case is quite circumstantial based on what has been disclosed to date.

And - quite honestly - I find BOTH of their behaviors outlined in the custody docs pretty bad. I don't think Nancy was a saint AT ALL. But - no matter - bad behavior, adultery, lying, etc - most any behavior is not a reason for murder.

There does appear to be some bias in the reporting to not explore some of the things that were brought up about Nancy's blackberry, etc and worry that it's painting such a perfect picture of someone that there isn't some sort of weird desire to find the bad and then somehow Brad ends up being the beneficiary of that.

None of any which is relevant to the case.............. but I am SURE we'll hear.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot you said. I think I would make a great juror in this case, even having read all the affidavits and warrants and after watching the deposition tapes from the custody hearing. I get slammed for not being on the "Brad is 100% guilty" train in this forum. He very well may be guilty, but it's not open/shut based on the known facts so far. As a comparison, I think Jason Young is 100% guilty.

But the thing I most agree with is that they were an immature out of control couple. I wouldn't choose to be friends with either one of them. I just don't live my life like that.
 
NCSU, I wanted to ask how your girls are? The youngest must be about 2 now, yes?

I would make a great juror because I would hold the prosecution to their burden and wouldn't cave to pressure from living in the community. And I understand how to follow a judge's rules, which is the most important thing any juror has to do. My beliefs would (have to be) set aside and the case would be determined on the evidence presented in court. Plus I don't cave to peer pressure and I obviously love to argue with strangers (on the Internet), so deliberating with other jurors would seem kind of normal. ;-D

I'd never be selected for this jury for a variety of reasons, but I know I could do it fairly.

When I was living in CA and I got called for jury duty that one time, I was praying I would get on a case...like a 6+ month case...because I hated my job at the time and my company would still have paid my full salary for any trial duration, plus the court house was literally 2 blocks from my office. I was soooo disappointed when I never got to serve! LOL. true story.
 
Thanks Sleuthy....my youngest did just turn 2 in November. She's an absolute delight and complete opposite from my hard headed 8 year old (8 next week). That girl is a challenge. I love her to death, but I want to ring her little neck sometimes. Of course I wouldn't because I don't want my own forum on websleuths :) She and I do Y-Princesses together. Wonderful child, but would make a great lawyer with her ability to argue every single thing said.
 
Your 8 yr old sounds like a perfect future websleuther, esp with her ability to argue! ;~P

So, how long do we think jury selection is going to take? JTF reminded us that the Peterson case (and his private defense team) took 6 weeks to seat a jury. I can't imagine the judge is going to allow that length of time in this case.

Anyone else have the urge to walk into Gessner's courtroom and yell "Hello? hurry it up already! <Snap-Snap>, get a move on...after 2+ yrs we're tired of waiting!"

No? Just me?
 
This is an update to the jury selection news story I just posted in the media thread here:

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6185634&postcount=274


On the ABC 11 WTVD noon news Ed Crump said by Thursday afternoon a pool of 34 potential jurors (out of the original pool of 75) who felt they had not been influenced had been sorted out. Since then the lawyers have been working to select 12 jurors and 4 alternates from the 34. Ed also stated that "court observers" said it's unlikely that evidence would begin on Monday.

Even if a jury were seated today there are some more motions to be heard, and that it would likely be Tuesday or Wednesday at the earliest for the start of evidence.


ETA: This update is not available at the website yet to link to.
 
ncsu95 said:
I agree with a lot you said. I think I would make a great juror in this case, even having read all the affidavits and warrants and after watching the deposition tapes from the custody hearing. I get slammed for not being on the "Brad is 100% guilty" train in this forum. He very well may be guilty, but it's not open/shut based on the known facts so far. As a comparison, I think Jason Young is 100% guilty.

But the thing I most agree with is that they were an immature out of control couple. I wouldn't choose to be friends with either one of them. I just don't live my life like that.
Click to expand...

I can feel that someone is guilty while still considering all the evidence. I hope most posters here would want a fair trial for anyone. I hesitate to talk too much before a trial because you can't tell what info that has been put out there is really going to come in or not. I think the DA may have more than we know, hopefully this will start soon. Looking forward to watching this trial with you all.
 
I think the DA may have more than we know
Click to expand...

Considering the DA has released no information in this case, nor has Cary L.E., I'd say that's a very fair statement. We don't know what the DA has as evidence. They have kept all info out of the public realm so the only place the public will hear about it is in the courtroom during trial.

The defense tips their hand a bit, or at least tries to put a story out there through motions that will influence the public, but if you look at what evidence the DA has said they have, you'll find they've said nothing.
 
Skittles said:
This is an update to the jury selection news story I just posted in the media thread here:

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6185634&postcount=274


On the ABC 11 WTVD noon news Ed Crump said by Thursday afternoon a pool of 34 potential jurors (out of the original pool of 75) who felt they had not been influenced had been sorted out. Since then the lawyers have been working to select 12 jurors and 4 alternates from the 34. Ed also stated that "court observers" said it's unlikely that evidence would begin on Monday.

Even if a jury were seated today there are some more motions to be heard, and that it would likely be Tuesday or Wednesday at the earliest for the start of evidence.


ETA: This update is not available at the website yet to link to.
Click to expand...

OK, I can no longer edit my prior post, but this link now has the video with Ed Crump's noon update:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7994139
 
The police want to execute a warrant on a cell phone on the eve of trial?

They are way too late to be doing this. It looks very bad, in fact negligent.
 
The police have had the phone in their possession since the original July 2008 search. They needed a separate warrant to access the data on the phone itself.

For some reason, between July 2008 and Oct 2010, they apparently didn't do anything with this phone and it was stored in police evidence storage. Then in Oct 2010 they (finally) requested a search warrant to access the data on the phone. That request was granted. If you look at the first page of the warrant you can see the date the warrant was signed.

They returned the completed warrant back yesterday, which then got filed (and is now available in the public record). So, sometime between Oct 2010 and Feb/March 2011 the data on that cell phone was examined.
 
Trial strategy ? - if so the defense is going to have to really scramble if the records on that phone point to BC initiating the "supposed" call from Nancy on the landline on that trip to HT...

9 jurors selected, getting there.
 
SleuthyGal said:
The police have had the phone in their possession since the original July 2008 search. They needed a separate warrant to access the data on the phone itself.

For some reason, between July 2008 and Oct 2010, they apparently didn't do anything with this phone and it was stored in police evidence storage. Then in Oct 2010 they (finally) requested a search warrant to access the data on the phone. That request was granted. If you look at the first page of the warrant you can see the date the warrant was signed.

They returned the completed warrant back yesterday, which then got filed (and is now available in the public record). So, sometime between Oct 2010 and Feb/March 2011 the data on that cell phone was examined.
Click to expand...

The call from his home to his cell was clearly known back in 2008. We had all speculated back then he used a VOIP 'trick' to somehow make that call. I too am very surprised the CPD waited 2 years after his arrest to obtain data from his smartphone. :waitasec:
 
Just the Fax said:
The call from his home to his cell was clearly known back in 2008. We had all speculated back then he used a VOIP 'trick' to somehow make that call. I too am very surprised the CPD waited 2 years after his arrest to obtain data from his smartphone. :waitasec:
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me if it is proven that he used VOIP to fake the call from Nancy. How his defense deals with this may be interesting, such as what experts may or not be called to testify. MOO
 
panthera said:
It wouldn't surprise me if it is proven that he used VOIP to fake the call from Nancy. How his defense deals with this may be interesting, such as what experts may or not be called to testify. MOO
Click to expand...

Went back and watched the video that covered all the issues prior to starting jury selection (from Monday of last week) and the defense was sure pushing to find out who the DA was going to call regarding phone data and what they were going to say. This of course occurred prior to the return of this newly released search warrant. I suspect the DA has it figured out by now - I did hear some mention of Cisco engineers.
 
Heck - it'd be EASY to have your fax machine at home "schedule" a call and then you answer and have a short conversation with the fax....

then - go home and clear the memory.

in some ways, easier than logging on from your cell, to have your home phone call you cell.

Would your cell carrier have data records that shows internet use at the same time as the alleged phone call?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 178 more.
Total: 445 (members: 179, guests: 266)

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
266
Total visitors
445
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,375
Messages
18,253,325
Members
234,643
Latest member
A4advocate
Back
Top