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

[Star12]

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)

??? We're talking about a 7 minute discrepancy here. When BC said about 6:15, I'm pretty sure he didn't have his receipts, since he later went back to the store to get them. And his first trip he did buy milk. Took the milk home and came right back to the store for the detergent, and also the juice. Don't get a huge discrepancy here?

 

[reddress58]

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.

Then I think K & B, if they were decent attorneys, would have clarified that statement. But as it stands, it's open for interpretation.

 

[Topsail Girl]

Maybe Katie wouldn't calm down with out it because she just witnessed what Brad had done to her mother.

I really think Knothead & Bonehead ( K&B) will be the downfall of Brad. Also creeps me out that K&B could mean Katie and Bella....... :-(

 

[reddress58]

??? We're talking about a 7 minute discrepancy here. When BC said about 6:15, I'm pretty sure he didn't have his receipts, since he later went back to the store to get them. And his first trip he did buy milk. Took the milk home and came right back to the store for the detergent, and also the juice. Don't get a huge discrepancy here?

Star, what I'm saying is you don't "calm down" a child who is still asleep. (note the bolded text)

 

[Star12]

If you mean the calming part, I guess it would depend on what "calm down" means. If it were a habit, or if she indeed were fussing. And then there is lawyer speak for what a great superdad he was..

 

[SleuthyGal]

Take a look at how they explain the scratches:

The photos reveal that if any marks were present on 7/12/08 when Det. Daniels noted them, that they were so insignificant as to be entirely gone a mere five days later.

So the detective may have seen them but they were 'insignificant' because they were not visible 5 days later...

The affidavit also contains the claim that Brad did not explain scratches on his neck. There are two reasons for this: 1) He did not have any scratches on his neck and 2) No one asked him about scratches on his neck.

Now he's saying there were no scratches on Brad's neck.

Hmrooo?

They just admitted that the detective said he saw them (but that they must have been insignificant to not be there 5 days later).

And...back to my original question when the SWs came out....

When the detective said he "advised that he noticed red marks/scratches on the back of Brad's neck," did he in fact say this OUT LOUD to Brad? Did he just make a comment and then there was no explanation (and now the lawyers spin is that Brad wasn't ASKED about them?) And K&B are trying to insinuate that the cops manufactured evidence that wasn't there? Oooohhh.

 

[raeann]

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.

Maybe, but if he really, really needed laundry detergent at 6:40, then he must have already needed it at 6:20!

BTW, if I saw any of my neighbors out at 6 am on a Saturday in their car, all I would think is "MMMM Starbucks, and I hope they bring ME some!" If he just needed an excuse to be out-- a cup of coffee and a McDonald's bag would have done the trick.

 

[jumpstreet]

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 ?

To me, this was the logical conclusion to reach when he published his rebuttle affidavit to begin with. The exact HT trip times, the statement about the phone call, etc... all stuff that could be confirmed, so it would seem silly to lie or fabricate it.

On WS though, [ and this is just my recollection ] MT3 has reaffirmed on a number of occasions that she has from a reliable source direct knowledge of a 4:20 (or so) AM trip, not reported in any affidavit, but viewed as a known occurrence. Other than the info from MT3 (on behalf of her reliable source) on WS, I don't know if there's any substantial reason to believe there was any other HT trips except the ones published today. [ MT3's source may very well be accurate, and completely unknown to BC and his defense... or... there may be some other explanation for why someone thinks BC was there at 4:20... who knows ]

To me though, RC's conclusion seems the logical one, based on the current knowns: In all likelihood, no other HT trips other than the BC confirmed in his original rebuttal affidavit.

 

[Topsail Girl]

I'm telling you Colon Willoughby is behind his desk rubbing his hands together and salivating over these stupid lawyers (heads). They are making his case for him.

 

[Star12]

Star, what I'm saying is you don't "calm down" a child who is still asleep. (note the bolded text)

I meant what raeann said. I'm on my laptop, and I totally hate this keyboard. Type jumps all over, the keys aren't 'spacially defined' enough, and my nails are too long and my brain is not engaging with the drudgery of typing. So my thoughts are coming out in shorthand.

 

[Anderson]

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 ?

Thanks for the clarification. I think you must be right about the TOD.

 

[jumpstreet]

Maybe, but if he really, really needed laundry detergent at 6:40, then he must have already needed it at 6:20!

BTW, if I saw any of my neighbors out at 6 am on a Saturday in their car, all I would think is "MMMM Starbucks, and I hope they bring ME some!" If he just needed an excuse to be out-- a cup of coffee and a McDonald's bag would have done the trick.

Well, I think the idea (if you're on the "definitely guilty" page) is that the HT trip provides video of him being somewhere at (or around) that particular time. An empty McD's bag and cup of joe may not be as supportive (unless there's video at those places too, and he knew that - in which case, you have a fair point).

I'm really having trouble with the notion that he made 2 HT trips (one of which to purchase green machine juice) just to set up an alibi.

 

[raisincharlie]

Maybe, but if he really, really needed laundry detergent at 6:40, then he must have already needed it at 6:20!

BTW, if I saw any of my neighbors out at 6 am on a Saturday in their car, all I would think is "MMMM Starbucks, and I hope they bring ME some!" If he just needed an excuse to be out-- a cup of coffee and a McDonald's bag would have done the trick.

Java Jive in that neck of the woods I think :crazy:

Not necessarily, in Brad's affidavit he says in line 167 that when he returned from getting milk, he noticed there was no laundry detergent. But he also told LE according to the SW affidavit that Nancy had been doing laundry - so how was she doing laundry with no detergent ? This is one of those things I think he may have told the truth about, his priority was to dispose of a body and run to the store so he could explain why his car may have been seen. When he returned home he noticed there was no detergent - he really really needed it in that case. JMO

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm telling you Colon Willoughby is behind his desk rubbing his hands together and salivating over these stupid lawyers (heads). They are making his case for him.

Well that would mean he's still alive and kicking so I guess you can cancel that reconnaissance mission I suggested on the Young threads to check the DA's pulse to see if he is actually still alive. I had visions of a skeleton sitting at his desk whilst everyone in the Young case waits and waits and waits for a (deceased) DA to make a decision. :crazy:

 

[jumpstreet]

J...Brad's affidavit he says in line 167 that when he returned from getting milk, he noticed there was no laundry detergent. But he also told LE according to the SW affidavit that Nancy had been doing laundry - so how was she doing laundry with no detergent ?

Maybe NC had been doing laundry and used the last of it? [ Maybe he noticed the empty laundry container that she tossed into the recycle bin, and that triggered him to notice...]

My point is just that these 2 statements by BC aren't necessarily incompatible (IMO).

 

[SleuthyGal]

Not necessarily, in Brad's affidavit he says in line 167 that when he returned from getting milk, he noticed there was no laundry detergent. But he also told LE according to the SW affidavit that Nancy had been doing laundry - so how was she doing laundry with no detergent ? This is one of those things I think he may have told the truth about, his priority was to dispose of a body and run to the store so he could explain why his car may have been seen. When he returned home he noticed there was no detergent - he really really needed it in that case. JMO

Exactly what I highlighted when I started that inconsistencies thread. How INDEED?

 

[Anderson]

I'm telling you Colon Willoughby is behind his desk rubbing his hands together and salivating over these stupid lawyers (heads). They are making his case for him.

Best news I've heard all day!

 

[Topsail Girl]

Well that would mean he's still alive and kicking so I guess you can cancel that reconnaissance mission I suggested on the Young threads to check the DA's pulse to see if he is actually still alive. I had visions of a skeleton sitting at his desk whilst everyone in the Young case wait and wait and wait for the DA to make a decision. :crazy:

I know it's tough SG. I really do believe that DA Willoughby is slow and steady for a very good reason. I have faith in him for personal reasons which I think I may have shared a portion of that with you. He will get Jason and he will get Brad. Just do the best you can to trust that. I do understand the frustration though. :blowkiss:

 

[SleuthyGal]

I know it's tough SG. I really do believe that DA Willoughby is slow and steady for a very good reason. I have faith in him for personal reasons which I think I may have shared a portion of that with you. He will get Jason and he will get Brad. Just do the best you can to trust that. I do understand the frustration though. :blowkiss:

Nope I don't think we've discussed why you have such faith in him but I'm certainly interested!

 

[Topsail Girl]

Maybe NC had been doing laundry and used the last of it? [ Maybe he noticed the empty laundry container that she tossed into the recycle bin, and that triggered him to notice...]

My point is just that these 2 statements by BC aren't necessarily incompatible (IMO).

That's a possibility. However, having said that, my hubby is very sweet, attentive and loving but TRUST me he has no clue what I toss into the recycle bin until he complains about how heavy it is on Wednesday nights. :crazy: