April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[NCEast]

MH's testimony was that JA only wanted information to the police to go through her, she didn't want anyone else discussing the case with the police.

I know. But CS's first sentence is this: What do you make of MH's testimony that she only wanted information to funnel through her to CPD early on? Why do you think she would say that?
That led me to think he got the initials/person wrong.

 

[SleuthinNC]

That's a lot of ifs. He'd have murdered someone without even a DNA test to prove - for his own peace of mind - that it was his child. Even if NC had said it was (or wasn't) his, the only way he could be sure was a DNA test. If it wasn't his, he'd have been off the hook. So you really think he killed a woman on the off-chance he'd fathered one of her children.

How do you know there was not a DNA test? NC took the child with her to speak with him at the bakery didn't she?

 

[GhostCrab]

As as I said, forget all the hearsay evidence from the friends...throw it all out.

i'll go with these 3 simple points and call it a day:

1- Alice Stubbs drafted an aggressive separation agreement
2- Bradley Googled his zip, then panned and zoomed to the dump site
3- Cisco has evidence Bradley he used a FXO compatible router at 10Pm on 7-11-08 (said he was asleep)...that router disappeared the next day.

Guilty as charged.

So we are supposed to declare him guilty first and THEN figure out the evidence as to how and why? Two of your items above the state didn't have until the 11th hour. So how did they get him to trial to begin with?

 

[Just the Fax]

Let's just hope the jury doesn't confuse all the BS and actually see's your points! :anguish:

I am pretty sure the state knows they screwed this case up royally with all that neighborhood drama that proved nothing.

If done right, the closing can win this case for the state.
We'll see.....

 

[Bottle Cap]

How do you know there was not a DNA test? NC took the child with her to speak with him at the bakery didn't she?

Was she supposed to leave her at home? She took both children to the grocery store, we saw it in a vid. Is that significant, or does it mean she was a stay at home mom who generally did have her kids with her?

 

[Shadow722]

As as I said, forget all the hearsay evidence from the friends...throw it all out.

i'll go with these 3 simple points and call it a day:

1- Alice Stubbs drafted an aggressive separation agreement. And how is that fact tranlate into evidence that he killed her 4 months later. Why did NC proceed no further with her attorney after that draft?
2- Bradley Googled his zip, then panned and zoomed to the dump site. And that evidence is spoiled, or are you discounting that??
3- Cisco has evidence Bradley he used a FXO compatible router at 10Pm on 7-11-08 (said he was asleep)...that router disappeared the next day. We have not seen that evidence as yet, nor has it been subject to cross examination. How can something we have not seen yet, be proof positive of guilt?

Guilty as charged.

MOO

And further how did BC make a 32 second spoofed call??? The Pros has not said how, perhaps you know??? Thanks

 

[jrb0124]

100's was a figure of speech.
Obviously they don't juggle that many at one time.
It is a fact that both the DA and public defender have a huge case load.

Once again, that is not a fact. You are stating things as fact which are not.

I'll agree with NCEast further back up the thread that this is the only case these ADAs (except maybe Cummings) are working on right now.

 

[Bottle Cap]

The littlest child attended Triangle Preschool all of 7 or 8 days of her life. Where do you think she was all the other days?

 

[gracielee]

Did you personally see the bedding? How would you know that then?

If you are taking the word of someone who has already lied in affadavit/testimony, please do so with a grain of salt

I saw the photos of brad's bedding. I guess you missed them? Part of the photos introduced as evidence?

 

[Just the Fax]

As as I said, forget all the hearsay evidence from the friends...throw it all out.

i'll go with these 3 simple points and call it a day:

1- Alice Stubbs drafted an aggressive separation agreement
2- Bradley Googled his zip, then panned and zoomed to the dump site
3- Cisco has evidence Bradley he used a FXO compatible router at 10Pm on 7-11-08 (said he was asleep)...that router disappeared the next day.

Guilty as charged.

So we are supposed to declare him guilty first and THEN figure out the evidence as to how and why? Two of your items above the state didn't have until the 11th hour. So how did they get him to trial to begin with?

Sorry, I don't understand you point?
How--- strangulation in the home
Why--- Nancy was leaving him w/ the girls and demanding a very handsome check every month.

 

[BrownRice]

It is possible, sure.
I just think she told the truth as she knew it.
A memory of ducks and sticks in the foyer was real, imo.
I remember items in my neighbor's home and could easily be mistaken as to the last time I actually saw them.

Exactly! If you were asked by someone, especially law enforcement, you would probably say, "I think there were ducks in the foyer as well as ornamental sticks in a vase." You wouldn't INSIST they were there up until 6:00 p.m. on Friday and then missing thereafter unless you were certain. And why would you ever be certain unless maybe you had a discussion with your neighbor about her packing them and that's why they were no longer there. That's the thing with JA's testimony - everything was absolute when in fact it was proven not to be.

 

[SleuthinNC]

And while he was driving all over Lochmere looking for her, a place where he knows all sorts of people, in broad daylight nonetheless - nobody saw him.

As I said no need to drive around they simply could have agreed to meet.

Also suspicious that the next day he was out and about all over the running path talking to all the people he could to get his face in front of them and plant the idea that "his friend they usually see him with" was "lost". Good way to confuse people into not remembering when exactly they saw him and NC together.

 

[Danielle59]

LOL I think you misread it like I did. She didn't say the animals hide IN a pair, just that they hide the actual shoes.

I thought the same thing, animals in your shoes, I would freak!! :floorlaugh:

LOL Yes, my pets hide shoes on me from time to time. BUt, I did have an small creepy crawly in my show once. And it was major creepout time for me!

Let me clarify on this, it was a house shoe, ballet slipper type with the stretchy top that the lizard hid in. I have the house shoes near the door to put on when I come in the house after taking the outdoor shoes off.

 

[Just the Fax]

Once again, that is not a fact. You are stating things as fact which are not.

I'll agree with NCEast further back up the thread that this is the only case these ADAs (except maybe Cummings) are working on right now.

:nevermind:

:deadhorse:

 

[Just the Fax]

And further how did BC make a 32 second spoofed call??? The Pros has not said how, perhaps you know??? Thanks

The trial is not over.....did you hear?

 

[BrownRice]

As as I said, forget all the hearsay evidence from the friends...throw it all out.

i'll go with these 3 simple points and call it a day:

1- Alice Stubbs drafted an aggressive separation agreement
2- Bradley Googled his zip, then panned and zoomed to the dump site
3- Cisco has evidence Bradley he used a FXO compatible router at 10Pm on 7-11-08 (said he was asleep)...that router disappeared the next day.

Guilty as charged.

MOO

1. But the SA was sent 3 months previous to the murder? He is going to be enraged 3 mos later and kill then? Makes no sense.
2. Yes, I give you that somewhat. That is concerning. I hopped off the fence to the guilty side when I heard that. BUT, big BUT, I hopped back on when the computer tampering stuff came up. I don't have an opinion right now regarding Google because I don't understand it.
3. There is NO evidence or testimony the FXO router "disappeared" 7/12. What the heck are you talking about?

 

[Danielle59]

That's a lot of ifs. He'd have murdered someone without even a DNA test to prove - for his own peace of mind - that it was his child. Even if NC had said it was (or wasn't) his, the only way he could be sure was a DNA test. If it wasn't his, he'd have been off the hook. So you really think he killed a woman on the off-chance he'd fathered one of her children.

I think you asked and I answered and now the conversation is getting circular. Yes, I think it is a possibility he killed her, a good possibility, that he should have been looked at with a critical eye as a person of interest, I don't think he was.

 

[Danielle59]

As as I said, forget all the hearsay evidence from the friends...throw it all out.

i'll go with these 3 simple points and call it a day:

1- Alice Stubbs drafted an aggressive separation agreement
2- Bradley Googled his zip, then panned and zoomed to the dump site
3- Cisco has evidence Bradley he used a FXO compatible router at 10Pm on 7-11-08 (said he was asleep)...that router disappeared the next day.

Guilty as charged.

MOO

1. True, but that proves nothing.
2. That evidence is in question.
3. There has been no evidence on this point yet, so I think you are jumping the gun.

 

[Shadow722]

The trial is not over.....did you hear?

Great. So when is the prosecution going to produce evidence of a 32 second spoofed call? They did not offer an explanation during their case in chief did they??

 

[gracielee]

Since I am new to the case, I have the luxury of no preconceived notions and now have the information being presented to me for the very first time. But I have a lot to read.

Can someone tell me what became of the statement supplied by Rosemary that said she saw Nancy jogging at 7:10 am? Was that discounted?

My understanding of what Rosemary saw was a jogger, running past her, and she saw her for literally one second. IIRC, in the early stages of the trial she was said to have had a discussion with the jogger. That *discussion* turned out to be a simple 'Hi' as the jogger passed her. Oh yeah, and while this all happened, Rosemary I believe testified she was attemping to untangle her 100 pound dogs leash or some such activity. If I've not remembered correctly perhaps someone can correct me. Again IIRC, after playing a bit of phone tag, someone did take Rosemary's statement by phone. At least this is my memory of her testimony.