April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[GhostCrab]

I've done 26.2. I'm far from a world class athlete. :floorlaugh: (I'm laughing at me).

I see his point. I am the same size and body type as N was and I am a hardcore runner, so I assume my physical fitness is above average. And you can best believe that if I were attacked I would fight back hard. We had a runner attacked in our neighborhood several years ago and when we (my friends and I) run we carry mace and are always aware of our surroundings.

 

[sunshine05]

Not only did he not say anything negative, he said nothing at all. Nothing. IIRC correctly NC was calling his phone all day long wanting her allowance. He didn't answer until he went to lunch.

Yes, different interpretations. My immediate perception the second time listening to CISCO co worker was that he said nothing negative, but that he did not say anything at all..period. Nothing. Not even an innocent, 'Sorry, my wife is calling, I will be right back". Nothing. The co worker said something along the lines of BC saying do they mind if went outside and took a call.

There is nothing odd about not talking about family while out with co-workers. While at the Duncan's later, he chatted with one of the neighbors about work, his kids, normal stuff. It is impossible to know the content of his daily conversations with people to make a blanket statement that he *never* talked about his family, imo.

And if I needed to step out to take a phone call, I wouldn't make an announcement about who it is. I don't think most people would. There is certainly nothing odd about that.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Exactly, why is it so hard to believe a man who has a history of stalking, one who exacted excessive control over his wife, read her private mail, listened in on her phone calls so much so that nancy & her family knew he was recording them, why is it such a leap to murder?

I know that you have posted before that you find reading a spouse's e-mail and/or eavesdropping on their phone calls to be gross, offensive, evil, etc. And, I know that if someone suggests that it is not nearly as uncommon as you seem to think it is, you accuse them of condoning the behavior. But, I'll take that risk.

I challenge you to find any research/data that suggests that snooping on spouses' phone calls and/or e-mails is a "gateway crime" to murder. As I've posted several times before, typically lawyers tell clients that are going through ugly separations/divorces to expect that this is going to happen. That doesn't make it right, but it happens. A lot. However, I until someone points us to actual data that draws a correlation between this behavior and murder, I don't believe it. There are tons of spouse's going through divorces who snoop and don't commit murder and there are tons of spouses who commit murder, but didn't snoop on e-mail.

This was a mistake on NC's attorney's part. If she had experience in family law, knew that Brad was technical, and knew that there was already suspicion of him eavesdropping on phone calls, it was foolish of her to be sending info that she didn't want BC to see via e-mail.

 

[GhostCrab]

His history of stalking actually was brought up by me, and it was in reference to the girlfriend he had before he married Nancy. She broke up with him and he had to move out of her apartment. (Her, in that her name was on the lease and he'd moved in with her.) When she broke up with him, he took all his stuff, but all her stuff too. Then he continued to come into the apartment when she was at work, as reported to her by the neighbors. Then he moved back into the same building. That's when she moved to get away from him. That's stalking.

But that was many years ago. And it was only in his recent history with N did he had start to monitor her.


Please correct me if there is testimony otherwise.

 

[Bottle Cap]

I know that you have posted before that you find reading a spouse's e-mail and/or eavesdropping on their phone calls to be gross, offensive, evil, etc. And, I know that if someone suggests that it is not nearly as uncommon as you seem to think it is, you accuse them of condoning the behavior. But, I'll take that risk.

I challenge you to find any research/data that suggests that snooping on spouses' phone calls and/or e-mails is a "gateway crime" to murder. As I've posted several times before, typically lawyers tell clients that are going through ugly separations/divorces to expect that this is going to happen. That doesn't make it right, but it happens. A lot. However, I until someone points us to actual data that draws a correlation between this behavior and murder, I don't believe it. There are tons of spouse's going through divorces who snoop and don't commit murder and there are tons of spouses who commit murder, but didn't snoop on e-mail.

This was a mistake on NC's attorney's part. If she had experience in family law, knew that Brad was technical, and knew that there was already suspicion of him eavesdropping on phone calls, it was foolish of her to be sending info that she didn't want BC to see via e-mail.

How should she have sent mail, then? She had a computer, and that was her resource. She didn't have several computers, plus one at the office. Mainly because she couldn't HAVE an office, yes? I guess she could have gone to the library, or to a friend's house. I've know several women in abusive situations that had to do just that.

 

[otto]

Bad time for a typo. 260

Thanks. Brad said that Nancy went for a run. This is definitely a lie if she murdered her. It is possible that she lied to Brad. She was also asking JP to go for a run with her. Perhaps she asked other people to go for a run. Perhaps there was someone else that she was going to run with, that person didn't show up, and that person wanted to distance himself from the investigation and kept the information to himself (like JP omitted information about his intimacy with Nancy until someone else reported it). It has been said that Nancy was reliable and notified people when she changed plans, but that says nothing about other people. Also, we can't look at Nancy's cell phone to know whether she was in contact with anyone that morning because the information has been wiped out.

 

[otto]

Good post! I just wanted to clarify one point - the TOD could have been as late as 11AM.

Thanks. The pretty much eliminates the entomologist's testimony.

 

[Bottle Cap]

But that was many years ago. And it was only in his recent history with N did he had start to monitor her.


Please correct me if there is testimony otherwise.

If he stalked many years ago, and then began cyber-stalking his own wife, there's something to be made of that. It takes a certain personality type to engage in the sort of stalking he did with the woman previous to Nancy. Especially considering he wasn't very nice to this woman. Read the affidavit. He was like he didn't want her, but her dumping him set him off somehow.

Sounds a bit familiar.

 

[momof7]

There is nothing odd about not talking about family while out with co-workers. While at the Duncan's later, he chatted with one of the neighbors about work, his kids, normal stuff. It is impossible to know the content of his daily conversations with people to make a blanket statement that he *never* talked about his family, imo.

And if I needed to step out to take a phone call, I wouldn't make an announcement about who it is. I don't think most people would. There is certainly nothing odd about that.

But the Cisco co worker said they were friendly out side of work, dinners together etc. And it is a blanket statement to say he *never* said anything negative about her. It is impossible for us to even know that. So either way its a wash.

I will say IMHO, I do find it odd. I understand the state they were in because of the divorce. I went through a very nasty divorce, I understand where they 'possibly' stood in disliking each other. I still find it odd that it was almost like it wasn't happening at all for him according to those who testified. He didn't try to negotiate the separation agreement, the lived in the same home, he decided she was to go then she wasn't, from testimony they fought, sometimes in public. Even private people have their moments and say something untoward when going thru stressful situations. BC was human, not superhuman. I can not reconcile that there was not one moment he said something in either kindness or anger.

Kelly

 

[Bottle Cap]

Thanks. Brad said that Nancy went for a run. This is definitely a lie if she murdered her. It is possible that she lied to Brad. She was also asking JP to go for a run with her. Perhaps she asked other people to go for a run. Perhaps there was someone else that she was going to run with, that person didn't show up, and that person wanted to distance himself from the investigation and kept the information to himself (like JP omitted information about his intimacy with Nancy until someone else reported it). It has been said that Nancy was reliable and notified people when she changed plans, but that says nothing about other people. Also, we can't look at Nancy's cell phone to know whether she was in contact with anyone that morning because the information has been wiped out.

Yes we can know. Every time anyone in my family loses a cell phone, we can jump right online and get numbers for people that have been lost. There is a very detailed list of cell phone records that have nothing to do with the phone at all.

 

[otto]

Yes we can know. Every time anyone in my family loses a cell phone, we can jump right online and get numbers for people that have been lost. There is a very detailed list of cell phone records that have nothing to do with the phone at all.

So has all the information from Nancy's cell phone been made available to the defense?

 

[zenreaper]

I've wondered about that too in terms of an alternate scenario. However, that is based on speculation and timing rather than DNA.

There is exactly the same amount of evidence in both scenerios.

BC is a suspect because the divorce would have financially ruined him...would have cost JP a bit. BC is a suspect because he was her "partner"...seems JP was as well. BC is a suspect because of some lies said to police...JP lied to police as well.

I mean, when you are lacking ANY forensic evidence, and want to make a case on circumstantial alone, you have to consider all of the circumstances.

ETA: I THINK they have requested DNA from the child in question, but it has been refused. I could be wrong on that though.

 

[gracielee]

Or maybe he couldn't afford one. He's a smart guy, maybe he saw himself handling it on his own.

Isn't that just what he did do, 'handle it on his own?' Brad had enough money to pay a retainer. He testifed in the depostion that he charged all his legal fees on his credit cards. He had a bonus upcoming. Brad didn't get a lawyer cause he knew he wouldn't *need* an attorney to get *rid* of nancy. Nancy was working with/through her attorney, all the while thinking this *divorce* was moving forward. Brad did nothing. And something made nancy call the realtor guy only days before she died, saying 'she needed to find someplace to live NOW.' She had to get out of the house and find an apartment for herself and her kids NOW.

 

[zenreaper]

Isn't that just what he did do, 'handle it on his own?' Brad had enough money to pay a retainer. He testifed in the depostion that he charged all his legal fees on his credit cards. He had a bonus upcoming. Brad didn't get a lawyer cause he knew he wouldn't *need* an attorney to get *rid* of nancy. Nancy was working with/through her attorney, all the while thinking this *divorce* was moving forward. Brad did nothing. And something made nancy call the realtor guy only days before she died, saying 'she needed to find someplace to live NOW.' She had to get out of the house and find an apartment for herself and her kids NOW.

Could the reason she called the realtor be because he told her NO< he would NOT agree to her going back to Canada with the kids? You say Nancy was working through her attorney, but the initial divorce filing had not even been done, and having been divorced twice, I know that is the FIRST thing that is done.

 

[GhostCrab]

Isn't that just what he did do, 'handle it on his own?' Brad had enough money to pay a retainer. He testifed in the depostion that he charged all his legal fees on his credit cards. He had a bonus upcoming. Brad didn't get a lawyer cause he knew he wouldn't *need* an attorney to get *rid* of nancy. Nancy was working with/through her attorney, all the while thinking this *divorce* was moving forward. Brad did nothing. And something made nancy call the realtor guy only days before she died, saying 'she needed to find someplace to live NOW.' She had to get out of the house and find an apartment for herself and her kids NOW.

I just don't agree with this line of thinking. I think there could be so many other reasons why he didn't get an attorney.

 

[gracielee]

See, I am not really sure where you get that from. Her parents loaned her thousands for a lawyer, why not enough for gas money to get to Canada? She is a Canadian citizen, so crossing the border with the kids in no big deal, she has all three passports (hers and the kids) until recently. So what trapped her?

She did NOT have all the passports. And numerous people here have stated that a parent needs the permission of the other parent in order to take minor children from the country. Her attorney, AS, advised her as such. When her parents were leaving only days before, her mother said Nancy was crying, saying 'I just want to come home.'

 

[sestty]

I’ve been following all of your thoughts and comments on this case, in addition to reading the original case documents and watching some (not all) trial video, and want to throw two things into the ring for your consideration…will enjoy seeing your comments.

AL and her book got some comments yesterday…wondering how many of you have read Joseph Wambaugh’s “Echoes in the Darkness” or watched the mini-series?
One of the defendants, Dr Jay Smith, after having been found guilty of murder (actually, three murders) was later released from prison with the conviction overturned by the Commonwealth of PA.

Why?
a) it was proven in court that the police actively suppressed a piece of evidence that would have supported the defense’s case that the murders happened somewhere else AND…
b) the lead investigator in the case, a PA state trooper, received a $50k payoff from Wambaugh…thing is, he would only get the money if the defendant was found guilty.

What a coincidence. (By the way, I think that the defendant was guilty…had this evidence been presented it court at the time of the original trial, I don’t believe it would have altered the outcome.)

I am not saying that I think AL is paying off the Cary PD to get a guilty verdict and sell her book. I present this rather as an extreme example of how relationships between crime writers / investigations can affect the outcome of a case.

This takes me to the second thing I’ve been pondering. Originally, Scottish law had two verdicts available for juries – “Proven” and “Not Proven.” Eventually, “Not Guilty” came into use where it appeared that evidence showed the defendant truly was innocent; while those found “Not Proven” could retain a tinge of guilt.

Part of me likes this – it underlines the task of reviewing evidence. Does the evidence prove the case, or does it not prove the case? Nothing more, nothing less…

With this in mind, it appears to me so far that this would be the correct verdict. Nothing exculpatory presented, but also nothing damning enough for me to say “You have PROVEN this to me.”

I do think it is possible to build convincing chains of circumstantial evidence; but do not think that has been done in this case.

 

[zenreaper]

Isn't that just what he did do, 'handle it on his own?' Brad had enough money to pay a retainer. He testifed in the depostion that he charged all his legal fees on his credit cards. He had a bonus upcoming. Brad didn't get a lawyer cause he knew he wouldn't *need* an attorney to get *rid* of nancy. Nancy was working with/through her attorney, all the while thinking this *divorce* was moving forward. Brad did nothing. And something made nancy call the realtor guy only days before she died, saying 'she needed to find someplace to live NOW.' She had to get out of the house and find an apartment for herself and her kids NOW.

Well, you know I don't think he did it, but IF he did, there is a lesson in this. When you take away a person's very reason for living, you make that person a VERY VERY dangerous person. This divorce, if it went on her terms, would DESTROY him. He couldn't leave the area until the house was sold, plus the child support and alimony would be based on his current wages, so he would have to find a comparable job in Canada if he wanted to see his kids. So in a soft housing market, with high unemployment, he is trapped in the US. He would have TWO mortgage payments, all the credit cards, and all the bills to pay on top of the other stuff, which would leave him no money to pay for the kids to travel to him or vice versa.

So his options? Be financially ruined and lose his kids, or kill her and if he got away with it, great, if not, he gets three hots and cot.

NOT saying he did it, because I really don't think he did, but really, what did he have to lose?

 

[unc70]

Nancy could have only been caught on a "red light camera" if she happened to jog through an intersection just as someone ran the light. They don't film continuously. There are lots of traffic cameras in Cary, can be seen on a local tv channel at times, but none are in the areas she would have been jogging.

My questions was mostly about security cameras she could have passed. I realize that getting caught on a red light camera would have be very unlikely. Don't know what non-public traffic cams Cary might have.

The question really is about the CPD looking at any of that stuff.

 

[gracielee]

I may have missed this, but is there speculation that he "stalked" her prior to winter '08? You really make it sound like he was doing this to N for years and years, but from what I can tell it was something that had developed during the time that they were divorcing and if that is the case I think to generalize his behavior isn't fair. And like a previous poster said before, divorce is war. I worked with a family law firm for one brief summer in grad school and the things that I heard going on between divorcing spouses were at times unbelievable. And I also saw many instances where the children were forced to into the middle or into some unfair role. Divorce is ugly.

Brad stalked the woman he dated prior to marrying Nancy. He broke into her apartment & stalked her. IIRC, she has posted here in the past, as have others who knew Brad & Nancy in Canada.