April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[sunshine05]

Hi Sunshine. Imagine NC was killed while wearing the dress and the method of killing caused some type of fluid on her dress. Now, to support an alibi of jogging her clothes must be changed. Is it not possible that in an attempt to put her into jogging clothes BC found how difficult this was becoming, therefore stopped at the jogging bra to make it look like a sexual assault? I just think that if a husband killed his wife that he would care less how the wife was left exposed.
No, I do not believe a husband would leave his wife exposed that way. If we use the excuse that it was too hard, the jog bra would be the most difficult of all the clothing. This is just my feeling though, no proof but it is what made me initially think someone other than BC did it.

As far as evidence tampering... Don't you think that the defense would have questioned the FBI witness about this solid evidence of tampering? Wouldn't this have made more sense to have the FBI attempt to answer the allegation of tampering instead of JW simply testifying how simple this process could have been hacked. They did question SA Johnson and Chappell but we didn't get to hear it. From the little we have heard, some pretty interesting things were brought up and confirmed - invalid time stamps and data that indicated a possible penetration on 7/15 (due to the 3 consecutive actions on the log). JW went into it also. Isn't it odd that Chappell didn't even look over the report until the night before his testimony on this?

So, now we have 2 possibilities, BC automated the 6:40am call or someone planted evidence. Both possibilities have been explained how easily each could be accomplished. I agree it was shown how easy it is to spoof a call. I disagree it was shown how one could do this and still have records reflect that the call came from the land line and records do indicate that someone from that land line called BC's cell that morning. The state was unable to prove the spoofed call. How could one convict on "possible" ways that he "may" have spoofed a call with zero evidence of it.
I don't believe the evidence of tampering is any stronger than the evidence of automating a call. Defense is not finished yet, but so far it looks VERY obvious to me that tampering did indeed occur. Tampering is black and white. Either it happened or it didn't. It must be proven and the nice thing about computers is the logs will show that and that is what JW found. The tough part so far is the logs have been essentially blocked from defense witnesses. I think if we didn't have the "forensic" expert ruling, the proof would already be out but they haven't finished yet.

In fact, I think the evidence of tampering is less likely because it would have had to occur during a very narrow window of time and it would have had to occurred with someone's knowledge that BC was in the Cisco office at 1:15pm on 7/11. I think the people NC was with that morning would be able to pin down the time he was in his office. They knew she was trying repeatedly to call him. We'll just have to see how this week goes and hopefully have a clearer picture. And we don't know (if it happened) who was responsible - CPD, an unfriendly neighbor, the real killer??? Whoever planted the evidence may have known where he was that day and the times.

(Edited to highlight my comments)

 

[otto]

Nancy wasn't 'telling people she was moving', brad was. He told nancy he wanted them out by the end of april. Brad himself said he'd checked into the cost of hiring a UHaul vs. hiring movers to move nancy and the girls. Brad bought nancy 'interview clothes' for her to go on job interviews in Toronto. Brad also testifed in the depo that 'they'd checked into private school for the girls in the suburb of Toronto where Krista lived, because nancy and the girls were to live in Krista's basement until they could get settled and find an apartment after nancy found a job.

They would have needed Canadian passports to register the children in any school and avoid paying foreigner school fees (which was a couple of years down the road still). Without Canadian passports, it seems to me that the reality of moving was way down the line.

Ten directions at once. Talking about private schools 2-4 years before the children were old enough to attend, looking at the cost of a move, buying interview outfit in NC when she couldn't work in NC ... none of this tells me that there was any sort of plan, just two people exploring options.

 

[GhostCrab]

So the divorce lawyer is calling Nancy? That's a bit weird. If someone was trapped and desperate to change things, 3 months is a long time to delay.

I would love to know what AS thought of N's behavior...she pays a hefty retainer, has a separation agreement drafted and then puts the brakes on, not even communicating with her attorney during the last few months of her life.

I just think that there was so much going on that we don't know. Probably will never know.

 

[zenreaper]

Kids born here = US Citizens, no?

Kids born here to non citizens, dual citizenship, don't have to declare one or the other until they are 18.

 

[otto]

Kids born here to non citizens, dual citizenship, don't have to declare one or the other until they are 18.

Are we talking about the children having Canadian passports? Wouldn't it be relatively easy for a mom and two children with Canadian passports to cross the border by saying that they had a nice visit and are now going home? Unless they had US passports, I'm not seeing a problem. Nancy had the children's passports in her car for a long time. If she was really in a very bad situation, why didn't she just leave? Was she holding out for the interview outfit, the financial settlement ... and if so, doesn't that contradict the trapped and helpless scenario?

 

[Albert]

What if BC had discovered that NC had also had an affair? .

If so then why would BC spend a Saturday morning scrubbing floors. He would then be aware of NC and the initial divorce agreement in addition to NC having an affair. Now my scheduled tennis match has to be canceled so how do I react? I doubt the reaction is for me to scrub floors. While my wife is missing I doubt that I would be able to do all the laundry that was done.

 

[momof7]

Are we talking about the children having Canadian passports? Wouldn't it be relatively easy for a mom and two children with Canadian passports to cross the border by saying that they had a nice visit and are now going home? Unless they had US passports, I'm not seeing a problem. Nancy had the children's passports in her car for a long time. If she was really in a very bad situation, why didn't she just leave? Was she holding out for the interview outfit, the financial settlement ... and if so, doesn't that contradict the trapped and helpless scenario?

I would be interested to understand this as well. NC had a very supportive family. While I understand the need to get what she or her attny felt she was entitled to financially, I do not think there wasn't a time she could not have taken the kids and gone to Canada with zero, absolutely nothing and started over with her parents blessings and support. If she thought he was not a great, involved father (per her friends testimonies) co parenting would not played heavily at first.

Kelly

 

[Albert]

It definitely did not seem as though NC was actively pursuing a divorce. Her last email to AS was in April, one phone call in May and then AS called NC in late June.

I think she was building her divorce team and keeping her options open to figure out how she was going to get everything that she wanted out of the divorce.

How does a divorce works, I understand that one person can decide to initiate the divorce. But what happens if the other person decides that a divorce is not what they want. Do both people have to be in agreement for a divorce to proceed? I am only asking because I have no experience with a divorce and hopefully I will not ever have to experience this.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

If he had to pay NC according to something like what was in the draft of the sep agreement, he'd have a dang hard time moving to France to live the life - as someone else put it here - of an American in Paris. It's expensive to move to France.

It's more expensive to live in Paris with 2 children. After he allegedly killed NC, wouldn't BC have been their sole custodial parent? They would have had to go to France with him.

 

[EnvoyDriver61]

We focused in the files with the invalid timestamps. But the detective stated he wasn't concerned because 7 had the correct timestamps. This concept was not followed up by defense. What 7 files with correct filestamps trumps the countless others that were seemingly messed with. Is there proof that an intrusion was unlikely based on these 7 good files?

 

[otto]

I would be interested to understand this as well. NC had a very supportive family. While I understand the need to get what she or her attny felt she was entitled to financially, I do not think there wasn't a time she could not have taken the kids and gone to Canada with zero, absolutely nothing and started over with her parents blessings and support. If she thought he was not a great, involved father (per her friends testimonies) co parenting would not played heavily at first.

Kelly

Once she landed in Toronto, all she had to do was lay low for as long as possible, stretch the time as long as possible, and when she applied for child support, the status quo would be that she lived in Canada with the children and it would have been done, finished. If Brad made an immediate application to have the children returned to NC, then he would have been successful. But ... Nancy was suggesting that it was not a problem for Brad if she were to leave. It seems to me that if a woman is living in an intolerable situation, the children are distressed and she has a very good alternative, she will leave with the clothes on her back and sort out the details later. That does not seem to be the situation with Nancy.

 

[momof7]

How does a divorce works, I understand that one person can decide to initiate the divorce. But what happens if the other person decides that a divorce is not what they want. Do both people have to be in agreement for a divorce to proceed? I am only asking because I have no experience with a divorce and hopefully I will not ever have to experience this.

I am not aware of this being possible. After a time limit, in NC one year with children, after seperating a judge will disolve the marriage. You don't even had to attend the day he does. You will be served notice, but your attny can attend for you. I have been divorced twice, in NC and in VA, neither time was it necessary for the other party to consent/agree for the divorce to be finalized.

I do know of someone whose divorce was finalized before the property/financial agreements were completed. She explained, divorce is different than child support/child custody or the asset divison.

Limited knowledge there, but maybe some of the lawyers will have further information. I do know from personal experience, Bed and Breakfast, the only adultery related reason to divorce in NC is almost impossible to prove.

Kelly

 

[borndem]

It doesn't show up on wakegov.com, but it does show up in a google map search as being in Cary. I'm confused.

Below is a snapshot listing of properties on Greenstone Lane, Cary, but the house numbers only range from 103 to 119. It is a cul-de-sac off Lochmere Drive. It has a 27518 ZIP code. Maybe 178 it is an undeveloped lot. But the house numbers 119 vs. 178 look way off from each other. Greenstone appears to be a typical Cary cul-de-sac -- not very long, so I can't see it stretching all the way to 178. Who knows? It is bordered, loosely, by Lochmere Drive, Kildaire Farm Road, Penny Road and Holly Springs Road. There is a gold course behind the lots on Greenstone, so further development of that area would not be possible. Looking at a Google map helps to visualize this. HTH

(Sorry for the crappy tabs -- or lack of 'em -- my cut/paste was pretty crappy...)


2 0180501 105

GREENSTONE LN
CA
3 0180502 107

GREENSTONE LN
CA
4 0180503 109

GREENSTONE LN
CA
5 0180512 110

GREENSTONE LN
CA
6 0180504 111

GREENSTONE LN
CA
7 0180511 112

GREENSTONE LN
CA
8 0180505 113

GREENSTONE LN
CA
9 0180510 114

GREENSTONE LN
CA
10 0180506 115

GREENSTONE LN
CA
11 0180509 116

GREENSTONE LN
CA
12 0180507 117

GREENSTONE LN
CA

 

[otto]

How does a divorce works, I understand that one person can decide to initiate the divorce. But what happens if the other person decides that a divorce is not what they want. Do both people have to be in agreement for a divorce to proceed? I am only asking because I have no experience with a divorce and hopefully I will not ever have to experience this.

I don't think so. If one person wants out of the marriage, there isn't really anything that can force that person to remain in the marriage.

 

[otto]

borndem, those links aren't coming through properly for me.

 

[Albert]

Hi Sunshine, I have no idea how to quote an edited quote, so I will reply here.

1. Tying the shoes in the proper manner is the most difficult when trying to make it look like they were put on and tied by the person wearing the shoes.

2. If tampering evidence is present is there any thoughts that BC could not be responsible for this tampering?

3. How could any friends of NC know that BC was in his office at 1:15pm but was gone to lunch at 1:30pm simply by knowing which times NC called BC that day.

While all your thoughts are possible I wonder how possible they really are.

 

[SleuthSayer]

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.

The recommendation from most divorce attorneys is don't use e-mail at all for sensitive communications. I've posted this link a couple of times before. What this guy says is nearly word for word what a friend's attorney told her when they first met.

 

[fran]

This is just plain wrong. Entomology said his time of dropping the body was consistent with up to 11am on the 12th. He wasn't confused, the Defense wasn't confused. It's perfectly consistent with up to 11am. The entomologist under direct said it could be consistent with 1am to 5am IF flies laid eggs at night (which they don't), so he has NO SCIENTIFIC CONFIDENCE in the results prior to sunrise on that day. Medical Examiner said his findings are consistent with leaving to run at 7am and dying within a few hours of that time. If time of death was confirmed to be prior to 7am, do you really think you'd have the lead detective saying there's no physical evidence?

LOL, wow! We disagree on most everything.

When the entomologist was talking about the 11 A.M. time on 6/11, he was going, I THINK, by another method other than what he finally adopted to use. Because that method led to the 11 A.M. time on 6/11 and NC was PROVEN to be alive up to midnight on 6/12, the expert adopted the latter method.

According to the latter method, due to the size of the larvae, the oldest larvae being first layed, was as EARLY as 1 A.M. up to 6 A.M. on 6/12. This is based on the SIZE...of course there were subsequent larvae layed up to the time the body was discovered.

The discussion about flies not laying larvae without light was brought up because that would bring into question the possibility of the 1 a.m. time-frame, however it was noted there was a street light within a short distance of the body which COULD have generated enough light to bring the possibility of the 1 a.m. time frame.

Now on the medical examiner's findings, I don't believe he said his findings proved she left on her run at 7 a.m. What he said was he has no findings to prove she did not leave at that time. It's kinda' a 'YES AND NO' in my book. Meaning she could HAVE and she may not have. Nothing in his findings for either way, because too much time had elapsed since her death. That's why they brought in the bug guy. My bets on him!

When the detective said there's no physical evidence, he was talking about BRAD'S dna. But he really should have answered like I would have, "Just Nancy's body!"

Isn't it amazing how a group of people can all see, hear, and read the same info and get different results? I guess that's why they say 'eye witness' is the most unreliable type of evidence. OTOH, that's why they have a 'group of peers' as the jury and everyone has to agree!

I guess the ultimate test will be, how the jury saw this evidence!

JMHO
fran

 

[AnotherSleuth]

I've been following this case on-and-off since the beginning. I was firmly in the "Brad=guilty" group since day 1, but just this week have been thinking that the prosecution hasn't proved it at all, and I don't think I would be able to find him guilty if I was on the jury based on the evidence.
Before I get beat on, just a few random thoughts:

*As a woman who has been isolated by a husband and kept short of money for nefarious purposes, I feel as if I have to speak out against those who put NC in that group. Nancy was in no way a poor isolated wife. Her allowance was larger then many entire families income, including what they pay for rent and other bills. While I have heard testimony that she didn't get that allowance in the last week of her life, I have not heard any that said that she regularly didn't get the money. It appears Brad "paid up" fairly regularly up to that point. I wish I had $300 a week to spend as I pleased, hell, I've had to buy groceries, paper products, ect on $300 a month and been ok. No sympathy here for Nancy in regards to her money situation. I really don't think you'll be getting any from the jury either. Even in regards to the last week of her life when she didn't get her "allowance", if you are in a volitile relationship with a soon to be ex, where you are arguing and fighting on a daily basis...if you don't realize that with-holding money isn't going to occur (heck, I can't believe it didn't come up before, that would be a good "warfare" tactic of his, hers being with her sharp tongue, his with the checkbook), and prepare. If she couldn't save $50 or $100 a week and sock it away for when he would play this game...that says alot about her and her issues with money.

*The testimony regarding the affairs is damaging, more so for NC, as unfair as that is. Not because she is a woman, but because she is dead in a suspicious manner. The defense doesn't have to prove someone else killed her, it just has to show evidence that she had a pattern of secretive extra-marital affairs. The fact that Brad also had them, could be seen as more proof of SODDI, as it is just more people who may have reason to want NC dead (although who would want Brad bad enough to kill for him is hard to imagine)

*I hate reading about Brad not loving his children, or only wanting them to avoid paying child support. I believe Brad is a major a**hole who more likely then not killed his wife, BUT I believe the carefully constructed facade of his being neglectful of his children is half male carelessness and the other half NC creation. She was known for embellishment. I know men who wouldn't watch their small children, even for their wife to run to the grocery. I know men who would rather get a root canal then play with their children in swimming pools. These men (including my father) are good parents, they just have difficulty knowing how to interact with SMALL children. They may get better as the children get older. BC doesn't strike me as a particularly affectionate or demonstrative man, but I just don't have any doubt he loved his children dearly BASED ON THE EVIDENCE in regards to the actual interactions in testimony and in discovery.

What do I think? I know you don't care :crazy: but I do think he killed her. I think it was a perfect storm. While I refuse to blame the victim, I do believe NC helped create the storm, and I also think she sensed she was doing it. The sleeping fully dressed and barricading the door (and you know, I don't believe that was a regular thing. I think that may have occurred once or twice, and then she just liked the sound of it so continued it to explain how much danger she was in, danger she could sense but did not truly believe how bad it really was) and other comments she let drop that she knew that Brad killing her was a possibilty. The idea that she couldn't leave is a ridiculous one to me, she was not leaving because she was following the lawyers advice, and she wanted to make sure she didn't walk away "losing". But did she want to be right and "win" or did she want to be alive and safe? She saw what was inside Brad. I believe she sensed that he could be pushed to murder her, and in some way she was afraid. Yet, she covered it up and just continued on, screaming at him about money, mocking him in front of other people, pushing, pushing, pushing.

I believe she knew he was capable of this, and yet she thought it would never happen to her.
I also think the jurors may find him innocent if we don't get any better evidence.
Unfortunately, the wiped phone may be what lets him go.
I learned in "Sociology of Murder" (best class ever!) which went into victimology and juror bias that black women jurors are more likely then any other gender group to believe the police are corrupt and lying.
(While I have it in my text, I did find this article which discusses it:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1997/02/24/1997_02_24_054_TNY_CARDS_000376407 )

This has gone on way too long, and I'm sure I'll be thrown from the forums for these opinions LOL, so back to lurking.

Excellent post, thank you

 

[WolfpackWoman]

<snipped for space>

Now on the medical examiner's findings, I don't believe he said his findings proved she left on her run at 7 a.m. What he said was he has no findings to prove she did not leave at that time. It's kinda' a 'YES AND NO' in my book. Meaning she could HAVE and she may not have. Nothing in his findings for either way, because too much time had elapsed since her death. That's why they brought in the bug guy. My bets on him!

<snipped for space>

Wow. Thanks for the well thought out reply. I 100% agree with you on the medical examiner. No way of telling either way, and that was my point, which likely wasn't clear. Could have been before 7am, could have been after 7am, which doesn't clarify anything for this case.

But I put the bug guy in this same category. In my take of the testimony, depending on which species of fly used, you got difference results, everything from Friday through Sunday. BUT when you step back and look at what he was working with, it boils down to 4 maggots total, right? And the ento was quoted as stating "I have no confidence in the scientific validity of these results." I don't think this is enough for anyone to put stock in, and in his expert opinion he said "nothing in my results precludes time of death from being after 7am on July 12" and then on redirect he stated "nothing in my results precludes time of death from being before 7am on July 12." I view that as a wash.

And as to the street light, they're going to have a hard time arguing those flies laid eggs over night by the light of the street lamp. They spent the whole first two weeks saying just how dark it was at Fielding Drive!

But--thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, and in such a well thought out manner. Really, it's nice to respond with facts and interpretations of testimony.