WTH Are Brad's Lawyers Up To Now????

[momto3kids]

Laundry party at Mom's house!

OK...I will go and come back to see how the receipt rings it up...
Dang...$20 bucks for this little test!!!

 

[SleuthyGal]

OK...I will go and come back to see how the receipt rings it up...
Dang...$20 bucks for this little test!!!

To be truly valid you need to get them to ring up the HE version and the non-HE version to see how it looks on the receipt.

Happy laundering! :wink:

 

[reddress58]

Also interesting is K&B state Katie was up and would not settle down. Why did BC state in his affidavit "I started to get ready for the girls to get up and noticed we were out of detergent.." So was Katie up or not at around 6:30?
Did a prior product at 4:20 not clean out what he needed it to do?

Was Katie up or not, Brad? Ding dong!! Another lie...with the aid of his lawyers, Ha Ha! Good sluething, Mom!

 

[Star12]

To be truly valid you need to get them to ring up the HE version and the non-HE version to see how it looks on the receipt.

Happy laundering! :wink:

Would ANY VIC purchase work? Doesn't have to be 20.00 Tide to see if your name comes up on the receipt...........

But then Mom does a lot of laundry anyway. It won't be a waste.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Also interesting is K&B state Katie was up and would not settle down. Why did BC state in his affidavit "I started to get ready for the girls to get up and noticed we were out of detergent.." So was Katie up or not at around 6:30?
Did a prior product at 4:20 not clean out what he needed it to do?

RC brought this up too a little while ago. It is an interesting point since he says he got up at 4am with Katie and he 'took her into the home office.' But his timing is very vague and he doesn't exactly give specifics about 4am to 6:15am. And as RC said, if Katie was fussy and wanted milk.....then why wait until 6:22am? So you now have yet another version of the "Katie getting up/Brad getting milk scenario" courtesy of the lawyer.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Would ANY VIC purchase work? Doesn't have to be 20.00 Tide to see if your name comes up on the receipt...........

But then Mom does a lot of laundry anyway. It won't be a waste.

No idea.

 

[reddress58]

RC brought this up too a little while ago. It is an interesting point since he says he got up at 4am with Katie and he 'took her into the home office.' But his timing is very vague and he doesn't exactly give specifics about 4am to 6:15am. And as RC said, if Katie was fussy and wanted milk.....then why wait until 6:22am? So you now have yet another version of the "Katie getting up/Brad getting milk scenario" courtesy of the lawyer.

SG, in the SW is where he stated she was up at 4. But in his affidavit he says he was "waiting for the girls to get up". So he can't get milk for a fussy Katie if he's waiting for her to awaken. See? Forget the SW info. for sec and just look at the website info and the affidavit info.; in total disagreement.

 

[Star12]

I think the Katie story is just a story anyway, but when my children awakened in the night, they always went back to sleep. Took care of the problem, ill or whatever, and then they settled back down. Sometimes "I" stayed up, but they zzzzzzzzzzzzed. So even if Katie woke up ill, my thinking is that she, too, went back to sleep. And if in reality instead of fantasy, commotion awakened Katie, chances are she would also go back to sleep. But I think BC was walking so fast in the tapes because he needed to get back because those girls WERE going to wake up very soon.

 

[Anderson]

Then his lawyers could have refuted the 4 am claim by posting that video, but they didn't. What is shown at 622 and 644 am has nothing to do with what is visible at 4 am and vice versa.

Yes, when I first read the headline I had assumed that they were going to show the early morning video to demonstrate that he had not been there. I don't think there is any controversy over whether or not he made the trips after 6am. He has always said this. Nothing new really.

RC, why do you think the early morning trip is unlikely?

 

[Anderson]

Well, as LE says, 'a perp often times answers a question before it's even asked.'

Just sayin,
fran

Very interesting.

 

[raisincharlie]

Yes, when I first read the headline I had assumed that they were going to show the early morning video to demonstrate that he had not been there. I don't think there is any controversy over whether or not he made the trips after 6am. He has always said this. Nothing new really.

RC, why do you think the early morning trip is unlikely?

I suppose I should clarify this. I find it highly unlikely that Brad told LE he went to HT at 620 and 640 knowing he was also there possibly at 420 and keeping in mind that LE may well check that. If there was a 420 trip IMO it was not to this HT at all. I can also see how things get switched in translation - we have heard 4:20 am - we have proof of 6:20 am. Brad told LE he was up at 4am - coincidence or the illusion of a coincidence ? It is possible someone heard Brad was up at 4 and heard he went to the store and it was heard as 4:20 rather than 6:20 am. Lots of possibilities with this if one thinks about it. I'll have to wait until trial to make up my mind on this one.

I should also add that I don't think Nancy was murdered when she returned from the party. The gamble with the autopsy subpeona while I believe to be bluster, would have failed miserably if the ME had come in and said Nancy was murdered anywhere between 1 and 6 am - was it a risk worth taking or did he know she was murdered closer to 6 which would move the range to 7 to noon ?

 

[Star12]

I suppose I should clarify this. I find it highly unlikely that Brad told LE he went to HT at 620 and 640 knowing he was also there possibly at 420 and keeping in mind that LE may well check that. If there was a 420 trip IMO it was not to this HT at all. I can also see how things get switched in translation - we have heard 4:20 am - we have proof of 6:20 am. Brad told LE he was up at 4am - coincidence or the illusion of a coincidence ? It is possible someone heard Brad was up at 4 and heard he went to the store and it was heard as 4:20 rather than 6:20 am. Lots of possibilities with this if one thinks about it. I'll have to wait until trial to make up my mind on this one.

You make a good point, Bubba.

 

[raeann]

I suppose I should clarify this. I find it highly unlikely that Brad told LE he went to HT at 620 and 640 knowing he was also there possibly at 420 and keeping in mind that LE may well check that. If there was a 420 trip IMO it was not to this HT at all. I can also see how things get switched in translation - we have heard 4:20 am - we have proof of 6:20 am. Brad told LE he was up at 4am - coincidence or the illusion of a coincidence ? It is possible someone heard Brad was up at 4 and heard he went to the store and it was heard as 4:20 rather than 6:20 am. Lots of possibilities with this if one thinks about it. I'll have to wait until trial to make up my mind on this one.


Good point..I may have missed something, but was wondering how it makes sense to some on here that he went to the store at 4:20 not expecting to be seen there, but then these same people say that he went back two times between 6 and 7 am with the only intended purpose that he WOULD be seen on the videos? If he WANTED the video evidence of the two later trips, but NOT to be seen at 4:20, all he would of had to do was go to a different store for the later trips and report only those to the police. They would have gone to the second store to check out his story, with a good chance of never finding an earlier trip IF THERE WAS ONE. The only way this whole scenario makes sense is if there was NOT a store trip at 4:20.

 

[Anderson]

Which part? The everyone or the flimsy evidence? I should have said most people.

This may have already been answered. I am working through the posts.

We have not convicted him. That is not possible on a website. If he is arrested then we can speculate about whether or not he will receive a guilty verdict.

I think that is what SG means, but she will clarify if I am wrong.

 

[reddress58]

Brad's affidavit:

166) The next morning, on July 12, 2008, I went to Harris Teeter to buy milk for Katie around 6:15 A.M. and went back home.

167) I started to get ready for the girls to get up and noticed we were out of laundry detergent and could not do laundry, so Nancy asked me to go back out to get some laundry detergent at around 6:30 A.M.


Kurtz & Blum Web site:

..."First, he went at 6:22 a.m. to purchase milk for his 2 year old, Katie, because the Coopers were out of milk at home and Katie would not calm down without it.


This is huge, people. All of you who want proof, this discrepancy is straight from the horse's mouth. (if you consider Brad's attorneys horses along with him. We're assuming he gave them this information)

 

[Anderson]

Yep, the laundry dance. This one is allll over the place. He talks about Nancy doing laundry, he himself doing laundry, him noticing they're out of detergent, Nancy telling him no detergent...lots and lots of focus on laundry and detergent early that morning!

And all just a short time before she was supposed to have gone jogging. Doesn't add up very well.

 

[raisincharlie]

Good point..I may have missed something, but was wondering how it makes sense to some on here that he went to the store at 4:20 not expecting to be seen there, but then these same people say that he went back two times between 6 and 7 am with the only intended purpose that he WOULD be seen on the videos? If he WANTED the video evidence of the two later trips, but NOT to be seen at 4:20, all he would of had to do was go to a different store for the later trips and report only those to the police. They would have gone to the second store to check out his story, with a good chance of never finding an earlier trip IF THERE WAS ONE. The only way this whole scenario makes sense is if there was NOT a store trip at 4:20.

I don't think the original intent was to be seen at the store himself as much as it was a reason to explain away any sightings of his car or one of the neighbors seeing him leave that early on a Saturday. JMO - basically killing two birds with one stone. The second trip was because he really really needed laundry detergent.

 

[raeann]

Brad's affidavit:

166) The next morning, on July 12, 2008, I went to Harris Teeter to buy milk for Katie around 6:15 A.M. and went back home.

167) I started to get ready for the girls to get up and noticed we were out of laundry detergent and could not do laundry, so Nancy asked me to go back out to get some laundry detergent at around 6:30 A.M.


Kurtz & Blum Web site:

..."First, he went at 6:22 a.m. to purchase milk for his 2 year old, Katie, because the Coopers were out of milk at home and Katie would not calm down without it.


This is huge, people. All of you who want proof, this discrepancy is straight from the horse's mouth. (if you consider Brad's attorneys horses along with him. We're assuming he gave them this information)

I don't think of it as a discrepancy, I take this statement to mean more that it was the child's routine behavior to not calm down after getting up until she had her milk, not that she was already up and NOT calm. It sounded like he knew they would be up soon, and that if there was no milk she would be upset and not calm down until she got it. Seems more like preventing a melt down by knowledge of past experiences.

 

[Anderson]

I've said this before - a call from the land line means nothing.

Plug in a fax machine or your PC and set it up to "send" a fax at a certain time. Sending a fax is only placing a call. You could easily show that it connected for 15 seconds or so. There's nothing that would show as "different" about this call - only that it originated from the land line NUMBER - not that a person actually was there and dialing it.

I do believe though - that the attorneys would be shouting out if it had been placed from the home number - because most folks wouldn't think about preplanning / faking / setting up a fax or a PC to make a phone call. And - if it came from her cell - WHY use your cell phone from the house? Since she supposedly went running without it, she doesn't seem like the "use the cell for everything" type person.

I thought her friends said that she always had it with her. Am I wrong?

 

[jumpstreet]

Brad's affidavit:

Kurtz & Blum Web site:

..."First, he went at 6:22 a.m. to purchase milk for his 2 year old, Katie, because the Coopers were out of milk at home and Katie would not calm down without it.


This is huge, people. All of you who want proof, this discrepancy is straight from the horse's mouth. (if you consider Brad's attorneys horses along with him. We're assuming he gave them this information)

Easy - revise K&B statement to be:

"...the Coopers were out of milk at home and Katie (when she did re-awaken) would not calm down without it."