April 15th wknd of Sleuthing

[Cheyenne130]

You can when it involves mutually exclusive truths. So, in this case, if you could prove that someone or something else made the call, you have proved that NC did not make the call.

You have proven that the something else made the call. That's a positive. It would negate the other possibility.

 

[Danielle59]

His own words state he had both experience and training related to cell phones and lists out the type of data he is familiar with people using cell phones for which has been evidence in prior cases. I don't care if he used two tin cans with a string in between for his own communications his words in the document contradict his testimony on the stand as to his knowledge of cell phones and the data they contain.

Plus, they all have lives outside of their work and in real life we are inundated with information in movies, advertisements, everyday with the newest consumer technology and what it does.

 

[Palomine]

be safe when the tornadoes come through feel free to take shelter and not post

 

[NCEast]

be safe when the tornadoes come through feel free to take shelter and not post

Thank you Palomine! I am a bit worried about what the weather will hold for central/eastern NC this afternoon.

I have been reading, lurking, since last night. Interesting posts, thanks guys!

 

[less0305]

And her father gave her $125 for a toothbrush, then changed it to $120, did she ever buy the toothbrush?

I believe that money went into the Nancy-get-the-hell-outta-this-house fund, that eventually went into the Brad-Cooper-Defense-Fund.

 

[SleuthSayer]

You have proven that the something else made the call. That's a positive. It would negate the other possibility.

Exactly.

 

[gracielee]

I did not find Detective Daniels arrogant either. He is a seasoned detective and knows his job.

I had seen the web page that Kurtz had up. I did not like it that Kurtz was wanting any witnesses to call him rather than LE. Any witnesses should call LE (she did), not a defense attorney. She is just miffed that LE did not rush right over to talk with her, IMO, so she contacted Kurtz at a later time. Kurtz did not immediately pass this on to LE. He would rather criticize LE than actually go ahead and pass on what he thought might be important information.

Someone mentioned Detective Daniels' body language on the witness stand. He is a big man. He was getting uncomfortable in that chair from having sat there so long, IMO. That does not dictate arrogance.

I could see that Detective Daniels was getting a little aggravated with Kurtz. I certainly would have also. Kurtz was basically accusing him of not doing his job well, and basically calling him a liar. Kurtz was also trying his very best to trip him up. I admit that it is Kurtz job to try to destroy a witness' credibility, but he is going way overboard, IMO. It is going to backfire on him.

I am looking forward to Monday morning!

I agree with the defense web site synopsis. Garragos did the same thing in the Peterson case. And IIRC, didn't the sister of scott, the Byrd woman, say anything that came in that didn't help the defense was dumped? Kurtz was attempting to say GD lied and covered up witnesses, and GD was, I thought, maintaining his composure as well as could be expected under the circumstances. MOO If I was Kurtz, I'd make sure I followed every law to the Tee, were I to traverse through Cary in the future.

 

[gracielee]

and the plate with ketchup on it...I think he got the kid's chicken nuggets that morning to calm them down
he mention that specifically in depo as child's favorite food

Good thing he made his handy list of 'what my children like'. :great:

 

[Danielle59]

think about it...just when would Detectives decide which defendants to frame, or do sloppy work...The whole idea of becoming a detective is finding out what actually happened. Detectives are so dedicated to their cases they work long hours, neglecting their families and loved ones...I think the government should outfit most police departments with the large scanners so everything is preserved as the day investigation started

I don't think they start out to frame people in most cases, I don't even think framing someone is necessarily the right term. I think they get tunnel vision and make statements that fit their tunnel vision, and then when something does not fit they ignore things that are outside their tunnel vision or make excuses for them. They have talked themselves into a box, and will look less than stellar on a murder case if they suddenly start changing direction.

The cell phone was beyond an amateurish mistake and now they are trying to dismiss it, make us believe they were not familiar with phones like that and besides it was not important, there was no evidence on it when at the same time they want every piece of BC's electronics to be relevant. When you got the first message on the phone that if you proceed all will be erased, especially when you are going off memory from a phone call with AT&T a couple of weeks before, then it would be prudent to stop and re-think your strategy. Then to not let the Defense know for 10 months that you did wipe the phone, it causes everything else that you did into question. How are we to know though that they did not get into the phone and erased it after they read it because the evidence on it did not fit their scenario of the crime.

Then there is the computer, they took possesion of it and protocal was to secure it by turning it off, but they left it on for 27 hours. Even the FBI agent was surprised to hear that. They are now saying that they left it on for 27 hours because they were afraid of losing or corrupting data, but we know now data was corrupted in the sense that it changed in those 27 hours. The question here is why was it ok to turn it off at 27 hours that did not make it ok to turn off at 10 hours, 18 hours, or 26 hours, anytime before that 27 hours? Why not a concern at 27 hours data would be corrupted?

Their own actions are causing them to be questioned. They are also human with all the faults of humanity regardless that they wear badges.

 

[Danielle59]

when the bell guy comes to fix a phone in a home the test call made from his equipment doesn't show up on the phone bill...the phone rings..but when picked up it is repair on the other end

But there would be evidence of the test call on the servers of the company.

 

[sunshine05]

It seems that the facts are being stretched a bit here with this statement. Officer Hayes mentioned he saw a woman matching the description of NC. Now you are making the claim that Officer Hayes did see NC running that morning. Are you simply adjusting the facts to fit a theory?

I would have to see the exact words in his notes. I have not. I hate when people jump on my every word and over-analyze it.

Adjusting facts to fit a theory? A theory that someone believes they saw her? Let's just see what the defense has on this because there are allegedly several people who believed they saw NC that morning at around 7AM, including a police officer. I don't believe there would have been hundreds of joggers out at that time that looked just like NC to confuse that many people. If that were the case, police should have asked other joggers at that time to come forward to eliminate them.

 

[gracielee]

Regarding if RZ is a credible witness or not, when I was reading her statement last night, this caught my attention:
She sees NC jogging on sat., observes the search around Lochmere Lake on Sun, and calls the police to leave a message. She then says in a sworn affadavit, that on several subsequent weekends, police were stationed on Lochmere Drive asking questions about the missing jogger, handing out fliers, and she volunteered again that she saw nc jogging, and mentioned police did not call her back. Then she says that at one point after the body was discovered on a weekday, she was stoped by another road block, and she explained yet again that she had seen nc.

So, a few observations:
-perhaps the writing is misleading
-what is ZD's sense of time and memory if she remembers missing fliers being handed out for several subsequent weekends for a missing, not murdered jogger
-after these weekends, are we to presume she is just finding out that nc was found? and if that is the case, was she really so certain that this was the person, when she lived in lochmere, and somehow missed the body's discovery for several weeks
(you would think if she really thought she saw her, then she would be a bit consumed with the idea of something terrible happening to her)

since we have not heard her speak, IMO, i think there is sufficient reason to believe she may not be very reliable

I posted this earlier in the week regarding RZ. Wondering if there are any other thoughts?

If she's a credible witness, then by all means, the defense should simply call her to the stand.

 

[Danielle59]

It seems that the facts are being stretched a bit here with this statement. Officer Hayes mentioned he saw a woman matching the description of NC. Now you are making the claim that Officer Hayes did see NC running that morning. Are you simply adjusting the facts to fit a theory?

I would say no more than LE did in their testimony, an example is when DD said BC was in his office on the 11th at a certain time because of computer activity when DD has no idea if BC was in his office or another room of the house.

 

[gracielee]

Me I couldn't run for my life...Nancy Cooper could easily out run someone who was following her. People today whether walking, standing, running are very aware of their surroundings if someone was following her..or near by her she would have known..and ran off

If someone else took Nancy Cooper, defensesive wounds on her body would have been evident. She was fast, strong, well-trained. She would have fought like hell to get away. Remember all the defensive wounds on Collette MacDonald? Both of her arms were broken, IIRC. Even Michelle Young have extensive defensive wounds. Nancy Cooper, healthy, strong, on the run, had nothing. She was taken by surprise by an IronMan. MOO

 

[Danielle59]

Brad Cooper

Where did Brad have broken skin to cause blood under her nails? I don't recall that testimony.

 

[Palomine]

So, let's see if this work both ways. Since there was no router gear or FXO port in the house then there is no evidence that BC could have made the 6:40am call. But, since there is no evidence that NC did not make the call at 6:40 then it is easy to assume as a fact that NC indeed made the call.

what was he doing with his cell phone in the Harris teeter video?

 

[Palomine]

Where did Brad have broken skin to cause blood under her nails? I don't recall that testimony.

finger had band aid on it

 

[gracielee]

It seems that the facts are being stretched a bit here with this statement. Officer Hayes mentioned he saw a woman matching the description of NC. Now you are making the claim that Officer Hayes did see NC running that morning. Are you simply adjusting the facts to fit a theory?

Quite a bit of that going on here lately. I've learned to simply ignore all the misstatements.

 

[Cheyenne130]

But there would be evidence of the test call on the servers of the company.

Not if he set up his own call manager in the house. According to the Cisco expert, it could have been done without leaving a trace on the company servers.

 

[Danielle59]

finger had band aid on it

But she had blood under more than one nail, was it both hands she had blood under, I am not sure, but one small cut that fits under a bandaid I don't think would cause blood under more than one nail. They should have just asked him to let them see it. I wonder if he still had the bandaid on on the 13th and 14th.